Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lightbulb-mcp

lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

quickbooks_preferences

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve QuickBooks preferences from your connected account to view current company settings and ensure downstream operations use accurate defaults.

Instructions

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

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.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "effect": "<effect>"
    },
    "name": "quickbooks_preferences"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectYes
argumentsNo{}
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds the routing constraint ('only through the exact project/account governed connector authority') and the fact that Spring verifies the effect is read, which supplements the annotations. It does not contradict readOnlyHint. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or what the preferences request will retrieve, so the added transparency is modest.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is compact and the Args list is organized, but the opening line is redundant with the tool name and the core purpose is buried in parameter details. It would be more effective if it began with a one-sentence statement of the operation's behavior and then listed constraints.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description does not explain what QuickBooks 'preferences' are, what valid arguments JSON should contain, or when this generic connector operation should be chosen over domain-specific QuickBooks tools. Even with an output schema and annotations present, an agent lacks enough context to invoke this tool correctly beyond setting effect='read' and guessing at the arguments payload.

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%, and the description compensates by enumerating each parameter with a brief gloss: arguments is a JSON string, project_id is an Authenticated Project UUID, effect must be 'read', and approval_ref is used when resuming a write. Some glosses remain vague (e.g., 'exact project correlation reference'), but the description does provide meaning the schema lacks.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies the tool as the QuickBooks 'preferences' connector operation and states that the effect must be read, implying a read action. However, it never explicitly says what the tool does (e.g., retrieves QuickBooks preferences), and the first sentence essentially restates the tool name and platform ID. It does not distinguish among the many QuickBooks sibling tools.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as quickbooks_company_info, quickbooks_query, or other QuickBooks operations. The routing sentence is an authorization constraint, not a usage directive. An agent is left to infer the tool's role from its name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools