AbraFlexi MCP Server

bank_transaction_create

Create a new bank transaction in AbraFlexi with required code, bank account, date, and amount. Supports income/expense direction and optional contact or description.

Instructions

Create a new bank transaction in AbraFlexi.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kod`	Yes	Transaction code (unique identifier)
`banka`	Yes	Bank account reference (e.g., 'code:BANKA-CZK')
`firma`	No	Related contact reference (e.g., 'code:CUSTOMER01')
`popis`	No	Transaction description
`castka`	Yes	Transaction amount, VAT-exempt (sets sumOsv on an itemless document; use extra_fields for a VAT-split amount or actual polozkyDokladu line items instead)
`typ_pohybu`	No	Movement direction - 'prijem' (income, default) or 'vydej' (expense)	prijem
`typ_dokladu`	No	Document type code (see the typ-banka evidence); defaults to 'STANDARD'	STANDARD
`extra_fields`	No	Additional transaction fields
`datum_vystaveni`	Yes	Transaction date (YYYY-MM-DD format)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv1.5.0Aug 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / banka / description

Previous value: -"Bank account reference (e.g., 'code:BANK01')"New value: +"Bank account reference (e.g., 'code:BANKA-CZK')"

changedInput schema / properties / castka / description

Previous value: -"Transaction amount"New value: +"Transaction amount, VAT-exempt (sets sumOsv on an\nitemless document; use extra_fields for a VAT-split amount\nor actual polozkyDokladu line items instead)"

removedInput schema / properties / datum

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Transaction date (YYYY-MM-DD format)",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / datum_vystaveni

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Transaction date (YYYY-MM-DD format)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / firma

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Related contact reference (e.g., 'code:CUSTOMER01')"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / kod

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Transaction code (unique identifier)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / typ_dokladu

Added value: +{
+  "default": "STANDARD",
+  "description": "Document type code (see the typ-banka evidence);\ndefaults to 'STANDARD'",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / typ_pohybu

Added value: +{
+  "default": "prijem",
+  "description": "Movement direction - 'prijem' (income, default) or\n'vydej' (expense)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "banka",
-  "datum",
-  "castka"
-]New value: +[
+  "kod",
+  "banka",
+  "datum_vystaveni",
+  "castka"
+]

First observedv1.0.1May 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create a new bank transaction.' It does not mention mutation side effects, required permissions, validation behavior, reversibility, or that this creates an itemless document as hinted in the castka parameter description.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is concise, though arguably undersized for a 9-parameter mutation tool; slightly more context could be added without hurting conciseness.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and a nontrivial 9-parameter schema, the description is too thin. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral context, and operational expectations; the output schema helps with return values but does not compensate for the missing usage and behavior information.

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 100%, and every parameter has a meaningful description, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('bank transaction in AbraFlexi'), clearly identifying the operation. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bank_transaction_get and generic evidence_create by naming the exact resource and action.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as evidence_create or bank_transaction_get. The description does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or routing criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the 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