BuchhaltungsButler MCP-Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Kostenstellen auflisten

bb_cost_locations_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search and list BuchhaltungsButler cost centers, or fetch one by code, to find the correct cost_location value before assigning a posting line. Use the code as the key.

Instructions

Listet die Kostenstellen des Mandanten in BuchhaltungsButler auf oder holt mit code genau eine. Gedacht zum Nachschlagen, bevor eine Buchungszeile über cost_location einer Kostenstelle zugeordnet wird. Eine numerische Kennung gibt es nicht, der code ist der Schlüssel. Geliefert werden nur code und name, keine Auswertung und keine Summen. Höchstens 1000 Zeilen je Aufruf.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	No	Code genau einer Kostenstelle, zum Beispiel abc123. Mit dieser Angabe liefert der Endpunkt nur diese eine Kostenstelle, ohne sie alle.
`limit`	No	Zeilen je Aufruf. Harte Obergrenze 1000. Größere Werte lehnt die API ab, sie kappt sie nicht.
`offset`	No	Zahl der zu überspringenden Zeilen. Die zweite Seite einer Suche mit limit=100 holt offset=100.
`response_format`	No	'concise' liefert nur die Felder, die einen Datensatz erkennbar machen und den nächsten Schritt erlauben. 'detailed' liefert den Datensatz so, wie die BuchhaltungsButler-API ihn ausgibt. Mit 'concise' beginnen und nur für die wenigen Datensätze auf 'detailed' wechseln, die wirklich geprüft werden müssen. Dieses Feld ist serverseitig und geht nicht an die API.	concise

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`message`	No
`success`	Yes
`endpoint`	No
`limit_used`	No
`offset_used`	No
`more_possible`	No
`rows_returned`	No
`_contract_warnings`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so this description's job is to add beyond that, and it does: it discloses the returned payload (only code and name, no analysis or sums) and the per-call row cap of 1000. It does not state auth requirements or behavior when code yields no match, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the workflow, key semantics, return shape and row cap. Each sentence carries information, though restating the return fields is mildly redundant given that an output schema exists.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers purpose, workflow placement, identifier semantics, return scope and pagination limits. With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying the identifier model (no numeric ID, code is the key), which is genuine semantic meaning for the code parameter and not merely a restatement of the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb (listet) plus resource (Kostenstellen des Mandanten), and adds the exact-code retrieval variant in the same breath. An agent can distinguish this read/lookup tool from the create/delete/update siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the use case: lookup before a posting line is assigned via cost_location. That is clear context, but it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer assignment-time resolution instead of a separate lookup).

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

Deploy Server