Skip to main content
Glama
RPasquale

lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

xero_list_bank_transactions

Read-onlyIdempotent

List bank feed transactions for a specified Xero bank account, using optional date range and reference filters to retrieve relevant transaction records.

Instructions

List bank-feed transactions on a Xero bank account.

Args: bank_account_id (required): Xero bank account ID. from_date: Start date (YYYY-MM-DD). to_date: End date (YYYY-MM-DD). 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
to_dateNo
from_dateNo
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
bank_account_idNo
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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior; the description does not contradict them. It adds a small behavioral note that 'effect' is required and verified by Spring, but it does not disclose pagination, scoping beyond dates, or account-resolution behavior. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 first sentence states the purpose, and the parameter list is compact enough to be scanned. Extra protocol fields like project_ref, connector_account_ref, and idempotency_key are each given a one-line gloss without padding. It is slightly verbose due to the args dump, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers each parameter and the core call pattern, yet it leaves the bank_account_id requirement inconsistent with the schema and offers no guidance on when optional fields should be supplied. An agent can probably invoke the read correctly with effect='read', but ambiguous field semantics and the missing usage context keep it from being complete.

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?

The schema has no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the Args list carries the full semantic load, and it does provide human-meaningful definitions such as the YYYY-MM-DD date format and project correlation reference. However, it explicitly marks bank_account_id as '(required)' while the input schema does not list it as required, which undermines correctness.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('bank-feed transactions'), and a scope qualifier ('on a Xero bank account'). This clearly separates it from write variants like xero_create_bank_transaction and from generic Xero listers.

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 about when to choose this tool over the many Xero list alternatives such as xero_list_statements, xero_list_payments, or xero_list_receipts. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or preferred contexts. The intended use is only implied by the name.

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