BuchhaltungsButler MCP-Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Debitorenkonto überschreiben

bb_debtors_update

DestructiveIdempotent

Overwrites a debtor's master data in BuchhaltungsButler, including address and bank details, identified by postingaccount_number. Use it when a customer's address or IBAN changed.

Instructions

Überschreibt die Stammdaten eines Debitorenkontos in BuchhaltungsButler, Anschrift und Bankverbindung eingeschlossen. Gedacht für eine geänderte Adresse oder IBAN eines Kunden. Angesprochen wird das Konto über postingaccount_number; die Nummer selbst lässt sich nicht ändern. Ob ein weggelassenes Feld unverändert bleibt, ist nicht dokumentiert — im Zweifel den vollständigen Datensatz senden, vorher gelesen mit bb_debtors_search. Überschreibt Stammdaten im echten Mandanten von BuchhaltungsButler. Die API liefert die vorherigen Werte nicht zurück; ohne vorher gelesenen Datensatz ist die Änderung nicht rückgängig zu machen.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bic`	No	BIC der Bankverbindung, zum Beispiel BYLADEM1001.
`zip`	No	Postleitzahl, zum Beispiel "28195".
`city`	No	Ort, zum Beispiel Bremen.
`iban`	No	IBAN der Bankverbindung, zum Beispiel DE02120300000000202051.
`name`	No	Neuer Name des Kundenkontos, zum Beispiel Musterkunde GmbH.
`email`	No	E-Mail-Adresse, zum Beispiel rechnung@beispiel.de.
`street`	No	Straße und Hausnummer, zum Beispiel Hauptstraße 12.
`country`	No	Land, zum Beispiel Deutschland oder DE.
`sales_tax_id`	No	Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer, zum Beispiel DE123456789.
`customer_number`	No	Kunden- oder Lieferantennummer des Mandanten.
`contact_person_name`	No	Name der Ansprechperson, zum Beispiel Maria Schmidt.
`postingaccount_number`	Yes	Kontonummer des zu ändernden Debitorenkontos, zum Beispiel 10001. Sie ist der Identifikator und lässt sich nicht ändern. Nachschlagen mit bb_debtors_search. Dieser Endpunkt erwartet eine ganze Zahl, das Anlegen dagegen eine Zeichenkette.
`additional_address_line`	No	Zusätzliche Adresszeile, zum Beispiel Gebäude B.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`changed`	No
`message`	No
`success`	Yes
`endpoint`	No
`reversal`	No
`_contract_warnings`	No
`fields_not_returned`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: warns that an omitted field's behavior is unspecified, advises sending the full record, warns changes hit the live Mandant and are irreversible because previous values are not returned. That irreversibility disclosure is exactly what destructiveHint=true implies but cannot verbalize.

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-loads the core action, then routes, then warns about the irreversible write. Sentences are dense and each earns its place, though the passage on postingaccount_number's type split could sit closer to the field definition.

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?

Covers purpose, identifier, lookup requirement, irreversibility, and the partial-update caveat, which is complete for a destructive mutation with an output schema. The one residual gap — that it does not name bb_debtors_create as the alternative for new accounts — is minor given the identifier-based framing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so schema already carries field semantics; baseline would be 3. The description adds two non-obvious facts: postingaccount_number is the immutable identifier, and it must be an integer here whereas create expects a string — a type-mismatch trap worth flagging.

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 (überschreibt) plus resource (Stammdaten eines Debitorenkontos) and enumerates the fields affected (Anschrift, Bankverbindung). Distinguishes from bb_debtors_create by naming the identifier (postingaccount_number) that this tool addresses, which create does not.

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?

Clearly frames the target scenario (changed address or IBAN) and routes the agent to bb_debtors_search for the prior record. Does not explicitly state when-not to use it vs. bb_debtors_create, but the identifier-based framing makes the boundary inferable.

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

Deploy Server