BuchhaltungsButler MCP-Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Buchungen zu Zahlung anlegen

bb_postings_create_for_transaction

Creates postings for an existing payment in BuchhaltungsButler using its customer-based transaction ID and line items; use when booking a payment rather than a receipt.

Instructions

Legt die Buchungssätze zu einer bereits vorhandenen Zahlung in BuchhaltungsButler an. Zu nehmen, wenn die id_by_customer einer Zahlung vorliegt und diese gebucht werden soll; bb_postings_create_for_receipt, wenn stattdessen ein Beleg der Ausgangspunkt ist, und bb_postings_create_free, wenn weder Beleg noch Zahlung vorliegt. Je Position lässt sich ein offener Posten ausgleichen. Buchungsdatum, Gegenkonto und Buchungsrichtung kommen von der Zahlung und sind keine Argumente. Die Antwort nennt die erzeugten Buchungen nicht; nachsehen mit bb_postings_search. Schreibt in die echten Buchhaltungsdaten von BuchhaltungsButler. Eine festgeschriebene Buchung lässt sich nicht löschen, sondern nur mit bb_postings_cancel stornieren; der Storno bleibt dauerhaft sichtbar.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`positions`	Yes	Die Buchungssätze zu dieser Zahlung, je Eintrag eine Zeile. Mehrere Einträge ergeben eine Splitbuchung; die Summe der Zeilenbeträge muss dem Zahlungsbetrag entsprechen, sonst lehnt BuchhaltungsButler den Aufruf ab. Die BuchhaltungsButler-API nimmt diese Werte als parallele Arrays entgegen (postingaccounts, postingtexts, vats, cost_locations, cost_locations_two, amounts, oi_receipts_ids_by_customer); dieses Werkzeug nimmt eine Positionsliste und rechnet sie um, wodurch die Arrays zwingend gleich lang sind.
`transaction_id_by_customer`	Yes	Die mandantenbezogene Nummer der Zahlung, zu finden über bb_transactions_search. Keine globale Kennung. In Suchergebnissen erscheint sie als String; hier ohne Anführungszeichen übergeben.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`created`	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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent): it warns that it writes into real accounting data, that a locked posting cannot be deleted but only reversed via bb_postings_cancel with the storno permanently visible, and that the response does not enumerate the created postings. It also states that date, counter account and direction are derived from the payment rather than passed as arguments.

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?

Dense but justified: the routing sentence, the offset note, the 'what is not an argument' clarification and the destructive-behavior warning all earn their place. Slightly long, with the safety warning trailing rather than front-loaded, but no filler.

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 routing, argument derivation, sum-must-match implications, follow-up lookup via bb_postings_search, and irreversibility. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the note that created postings are not returned is a useful bonus.

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 already 100% and includes an unusually thorough positions array doc, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by noting that open items can be offset per position and that booking date, counter account and direction are implicit in the transaction rather than arguments.

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 and resource ('Legt die Buchungssätze zu einer bereits vorhandenen Zahlung ... an') and immediately distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings (bb_postings_create_for_receipt, bb_postings_create_free). An agent can pick the right posting-creation tool 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit routing rules: use this when the id_by_customer of a payment exists and it should be posted; use bb_postings_create_for_receipt when a receipt is the starting point; use bb_postings_create_free when neither exists. Both the when and the alternatives are named with their selecting conditions.

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

Deploy Server