Skip to main content
Glama

xero_create_statement

DestructiveIdempotent

Create a Xero statement via the Lightbulb MCP connector, using project-bound authentication and idempotency keys for financial record management.

Instructions

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

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: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectNo
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. Changed6 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: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Effect"
      +}
    • 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"
      +}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the description is not the sole source of safety information. It does add useful behavioral context: routing only through the governed connector authority, Spring verifying the claimed effect, and the need for an approval_ref when resuming a write. However, it does not describe the actual side effects or what destruction or mutation occurs.

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 parameter list is compact and scannable, with each argument receiving a brief purpose. The opening line is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the routing sentence could be merged, but overall no major bloat exists.

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 is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly for a domain action. It never explains what a statement is, what the 'arguments' JSON should contain, or what the operation returns or mutates. The output schema exists, but the missing domain semantics and argument structure are critical gaps.

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 the burden of explaining the parameters. It provides a one-line semantic for every parameter: project_id is an authenticated project UUID, idempotency_key is a stable business-action identity, and approval_ref is for resuming writes. The main weakness is that the central 'arguments' parameter is only described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', without detailing the expected shape.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description begins by restating the tool name as 'Xero connector operation `create_statement`' without defining what a statement is or what the operation actually creates. The rest of the text focuses on routing and parameter metadata, not on the domain-specific purpose. This is closer to a tautology than a resource-focused explanation.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative, such as xero_intake_bill or xero_create_invoice. It mentions routing constraints and approval resume behavior, but never states a selection condition or exclusion. This leaves the agent without enough context to decide when this tool is the right choice.

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