Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_transactions

Retrieve bank transactions for a specific matter or bank account by providing a matter ID or bank ID.

Instructions

List bank transactions for a matter or bank.

The LCS /v1 transactions endpoint has no firm-wide listing — pass either a matter_id (GUID) or a bank_id. /v1 exposes no bank enumeration, so a bank_id must come from the Rocket Matter UI.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
bank_idNo
matter_idNo
page_sizeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement to use one of the two IDs and the lack of firm-wide listing. It does not mention pagination behavior or read-only nature, but the output schema likely fills gaps.

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 concise with two main sentences plus a clarifying note. It front-loads the primary action. Minor verbosity in the note about API endpoints could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 description explains the core logic but omits the mutual exclusivity of matter_id and bank_id and what happens if both or neither are provided. Given the output schema exists, it is moderately complete but leaves some ambiguity.

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 must compensate. It explains the two key parameters (matter_id and bank_id) and their purpose, but does not detail page and page_size beyond their existence. This is acceptable but not complete.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists bank transactions for a matter or bank, explaining the API constraint of no firm-wide listing. This distinguishes it from other list tools and gives a specific verb+resource.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says to pass either a matter_id or bank_id and notes that bank_id must come from the Rocket Matter UI. It implies that a firm-wide listing is not possible, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other scenarios.

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