Skip to main content
Glama
RPasquale

lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

xero_balance_sheet_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the Xero balance sheet report for the authenticated project via the governed connector account, with read-only effect enforced.

Instructions

Xero connector operation balance_sheet_report (platform tool xero.balance_sheet_report).

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectYes
argumentsNo{}
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • 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"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the bar for additional value is lower. The description adds some useful context beyond annotations: the governed-connector-authority routing constraint and the fact that Spring verifies the effect must be 'read'. However, the approval_ref gloss — 'Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write' — is confusing boilerplate for a read-constrained operation, slightly muddying the behavioral picture.

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 compact at roughly 100 words, front-loads the scope statement, and organizes parameter semantics into a clean bulleted list where each line earns its place. The only structural blemish is the out-of-place write-resume note on approval_ref for a read-only tool, which wastes a line and injects confusion.

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?

Annotations and the output schema cover the safety profile and return shape, so those burdens are lifted. But the description omits the highest-value information for this tool: what a balance sheet report contains and when to choose it over the large cluster of sibling Xero report tools. It also gives zero guidance on the operation's actual arguments. For a tool in a 10+ report sibling group, this is a significant completeness gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does provide a gloss for every parameter (project_id as Authenticated Project UUID, connector_account_ref as project-bound alias, idempotency_key as stable business-action identity). But the central `arguments` parameter is described circularly as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without any hint of what report parameters (dates, periods, tracking categories) should be supplied, which is the parameter an agent most needs direction on.

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 Xero connector operation `balance_sheet_report` and names its platform counterpart, so the resource is recognizable from the tool name itself. However, it never states what the tool actually does — it doesn't say it generates or retrieves a balance sheet report, what the report contains (assets, liabilities, equity), or how it differs from the many sibling report tools. The verb is absent and purpose is left to inference from the name.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not explain when an agent should select this tool over the roughly ten sibling Xero report tools (profit_loss_report, trial_balance_report, cash_flow_report, aged_receivable_report, gst_report, etc.), nor does it give scenario hints like 'use for financial position at a point in time'. The routing note is about access governance, not usage context.

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