zoho-bookkeeper-mcp

create_vendor

Create a new vendor contact in Zoho Books to obtain a vendor ID for expenses, bills, or payments.

Instructions

Create a new vendor contact. Use this when expense, bill, or vendor-payment workflows need a vendor_id that does not exist yet in Zoho Books.

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": "create_vendor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`organization_id`	No	Zoho org ID (uses ZOHO_ORGANIZATION_ID env var if not provided)
`contact_name`	No	Optional Zoho contact_name value
`display_name`	No	Optional vendor display name alias; used as Zoho contact_name if provided
`company_name`	No	Optional legal or company name
`email`	No	Optional vendor email
`phone`	No	Optional vendor phone number
`currency_id`	No	Optional currency ID
`payment_terms`	No	Optional payment terms in days
`billing_address`	No	Optional billing address
`notes`	No	Optional internal notes for the vendor

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, confirming a write operation. The description confirms creation but adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No mention of side effects, error handling, or return behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose ('Create a new vendor contact'), followed by a specific use-case. Two sentences, no filler.

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?

Given the complexity of 10 parameters (all optional, nested object) and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It does not mention return value, required parameters for success, or error scenarios. Adequate but has gaps.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-level information, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a new vendor contact and specifies when to use it. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_vendor by focusing on creation when no vendor_id exists.

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 'Use this when expense, bill, or vendor-payment workflows need a vendor_id that does not exist yet', providing clear context. It implicitly suggests not to use if vendor exists, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server