BuchhaltungsButler MCP-Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Zuordnung Beleg zu Zahlung lösen

bb_transactions_unassign_receipt

Destructive

Removes the link between a receipt and a payment in BuchhaltungsButler when a receipt was assigned to the wrong payment. The receipt and payment themselves stay unchanged.

Instructions

Löst in BuchhaltungsButler die Zuordnung zwischen einem Beleg und einer Zahlung. Zu nehmen, wenn ein Beleg der falschen Zahlung zugeordnet wurde. Welche Belege an einer Zahlung hängen, zeigt bb_transactions_list_receipts. Der Beleg selbst bleibt erhalten; als gelöscht markiert wird er mit bb_receipts_delete, und die Zahlung bleibt ohnehin unberührt. Hängt an der Zuordnung eine bestätigte Buchung, lehnt BuchhaltungsButler den Aufruf ab; die Buchung zuerst mit bb_postings_unconfirm_for_transaction entfernen. Schreibt in die echten Buchhaltungsdaten von BuchhaltungsButler. Rückgängig zu machen mit bb_transactions_assign_receipt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`receipt_id_by_customer`	Yes	Die mandantenbezogene Nummer des Belegs, zu finden über bb_receipts_search. Keine globale Kennung. In Suchergebnissen erscheint sie als String; hier ohne Anführungszeichen übergeben. Gelöst wird nur die Zuordnung dieses einen Belegs.
`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
`message`	No
`removed`	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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the receipt survives, the payment is untouched, real accounting data is written, and the call is rejected if a confirmed posting is attached. It even names the workaround tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information (trigger, side effects, precondition, undo). Slightly long, 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?

For a destructive mutation with an output schema already defining return values, the description covers trigger, side effects, failure precondition, and reversal, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it safely.

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% and both parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema (tenant-relative IDs, string-vs-integer caveat). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 and resource: it detaches the assignment between a receipt and a payment in BuchhaltungsButler. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bb_transactions_assign_receipt or bb_receipts_delete.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition ('wenn ein Beleg der falschen Zahlung zugeordnet wurde') and points to the sibling that lists affected receipts (bb_transactions_list_receipts), the delete path (bb_receipts_delete), the undo path (bb_transactions_assign_receipt), and the required precondition tool (bb_postings_unconfirm_for_transaction).

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

Deploy Server