BuchhaltungsButler MCP-Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Belege einer Zahlung auflisten

bb_transactions_list_receipts

Read-onlyIdempotent

List receipts linked to a specific BuchhaltungsButler payment. Check if it already has receipts before creating a posting.

Instructions

Listet die Belege auf, die in BuchhaltungsButler einer bestimmten Zahlung zugeordnet sind. Zu nehmen, um vor einer Buchung zu prüfen, ob eine Zahlung schon einen Beleg trägt. Die Gegenrichtung, also die Zahlungen eines Belegs, liefert bb_receipts_list_transactions. Geliefert werden je Beleg nur id_by_customer und filename, keine Beträge; den Beleg selbst holt bb_receipts_get.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirmed_only`	No	Nur bestätigte Zuordnungen liefern. Ohne Angabe liefert die API auch unbestätigte; die Vorgabe der Spezifikation ist 'false'.
`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
`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
`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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description earns credit for adding return-shape context: only id_by_customer and filename, no amounts, and it routes to bb_receipts_get for the full record. It does not mention pagination or whether unconfirmed assignments appear by default (that lives in the schema), leaving a small gap.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then the alternative, then the return caveat. Every sentence carries information; only minor wording inefficiency ('Zu nehmen, um...').

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 selection criteria, the sibling alternative, and the notable return limitation, while an output schema exists to carry the rest. Nothing needed to call this read-only list tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the confirmed_only default behavior and response_format semantics. The description adds no parameter-level syntax beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 auf) and resource (Belege einer Zahlung) with the scoping qualifier 'einer bestimmten Zahlung zugeordnet'. It explicitly names the sibling that does the reverse direction (bb_receipts_list_transactions), so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Gives the triggering scenario ('vor einer Buchung zu prüfen, ob eine Zahlung schon einen Beleg trägt') and names the complementary tool for the inverse query. When-to-use and the alternative are both explicit.

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

Deploy Server