lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

quickbooks_list_vendor_credits

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve vendor credits from QuickBooks to review supplier credit balances and simplify payables reconciliation.

Instructions

Quickbooks connector operation list_vendor_credits (platform tool quickbooks.list_vendor_credits).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`effect`	Yes
`arguments`	No	{}
`project_id`	No
`project_ref`	No
`approval_ref`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`connector_account_ref`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / effect

Added value: +{
+  "const": "read",
+  "title": "Effect",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "effect"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds value beyond them: it discloses that the tool routes only through the governed connector authority (an auth/scoping trait) and that the `effect` parameter is verified by Spring and must be 'read'. This is meaningful behavioral context consistent with the read-only annotation, with no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured: operation identity first, then the routing constraint, then a compact Args list covering all parameters. Every line earns its place and there is no filler. The Args list is slightly mechanical boilerplate, but at roughly 100 words it is appropriately sized for a 7-parameter wrapper tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return values and safety are already covered elsewhere. What is missing is the semantics of the `arguments` JSON string — an agent cannot determine how to construct a valid payload for the actual list_vendor_credits connector operation (filters, limits, required fields). Also absent is any pointer to a sibling like list_project_connector_accounts for resolving the connector_account_ref. Adequate for a wrapper, but the one operation-specific input remains opaque.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden and largely compensates: it provides a one-line role for all 7 parameters (e.g., project_id='Authenticated Project UUID', connector_account_ref='Project-bound connector account alias', effect='Required and must be read'). The explanations are terse but sufficient for the plumbng params. The one gap is the `arguments` parameter itself, which is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' — the actual QuickBooks filters/pagination an agent could pass are not documented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact operation (`list_vendor_credits`) and maps it to the platform tool (`quickbooks.list_vendor_credits`), so an agent can unambiguously tell this lists QuickBooks vendor credits and distinguish it from sibling list tools like quickbooks_list_bills or quickbooks_list_invoices. The first sentence is close to a restatement of the name, but the resource and verb are clear from the combination of name and operation mapping, and the routing sentence adds distinguishing scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states a routing constraint ('Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority') but never explains when an agent should pick this over quickbooks_query, quickbooks_list_bills, or other QuickBooks list operations. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server