Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zoho-bookkeeper-mcp

zoho-bookkeeper-mcp

by bu5hm4nn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_expense_receipt

Attach receipt files to expenses in Zoho Books for easy record-keeping. Accepts PDF, images, and documents under 10MB.

Instructions

Upload a receipt attachment to an expense. Supported file types: PDF, PNG, JPG, JPEG, GIF, DOC, DOCX, XLS, XLSX. Use this to attach scanned receipts or invoice images. Files must be in allowed directories and under 10MB.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "expense_id": "<expense_id>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "add_expense_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
organization_idNoZoho org ID (uses ZOHO_ORGANIZATION_ID env var if not provided)
expense_idYesExpense ID to attach receipt to
file_pathYesFull local file path to the receipt

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses file type restrictions, size limit, and directory constraints, adding context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and clarifies the write nature of the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose, then providing file types and usage guidance. No redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description adequately covers file types, size, and allowed directories for an upload tool. It lacks details on error handling or duplicate behavior, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are described in the schema. The description adds general context (file types, size) but does not enhance individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides.

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's action ('Upload a receipt attachment to an expense') and lists supported file types, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle attachments for bills, invoices, and journals.

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 provides explicit use cases ('attach scanned receipts or invoice images') and constraints (file types, size limit), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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