Skip to main content
Glama
erp-mafia

Fortnox MCP Server

by erp-mafia

Related Servers

Alternatives to Fortnox MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for the FreeAgent accounting API, enabling LLMs to securely access and manage accounting data including contacts, invoices, bills, bank transactions, and more.
      5 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server for Danish accounting via Billy.dk API, enabling natural-language control over invoices, bank lines, reports, and more, with a write-guard for safety.
      65
      1
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Multi-tenant MCP server connecting accounting software to AI assistants via ~87 tools. Supports Bokio (Swedish accounting) with mock mode for development.
      -
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Hosted MCP server that enables AI assistants to manage clients, invoices, and expenses via the Invox API, supporting actions like drafting, sending, cancelling, and marking invoices as paid, as well as logging expenses and updating client information.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for the Elorus invoicing and accounting platform, enabling AI assistants to create invoices, manage contacts, and query financial data through natural language.
      43
      4
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server that provides 76 tools for the FreeAgent accounting API, enabling management of invoices, expenses, contacts, projects, timeslips, banking, bills, estimates, credit notes, and accounting reports through natural language.
      76
      12 npm
      5
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 51 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    The CRUD tools for customers, suppliers, invoices, and accounts are clearly distinct, but the large set of analytical tools creates ambiguity. Tools like period_comparison vs yearly_comparison, customer_growth vs period_comparison, and several 'LIMITED' tools that all defer to account_activity have overlapping or unclear boundaries.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the fortnox_ prefix and consistently use lowercase with underscores. However, the pattern is not strictly verb_noun: CRUD tools use list_/get_/create_/update_/delete_, while analytics use noun-based names like invoice_summary, order_pipeline, and cash_flow_forecast. The style is predictable but not uniform.

    Tool Count2/5

    With 51 tools, the server is heavily oversized. Many analytics overlap or are stubs (e.g., five 'LIMITED' tools that just point to account_activity), suggesting the tool count could be reduced significantly without losing functionality. This exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'.

    Completeness3/5

    Core financial entities (customers, suppliers, invoices, accounts, vouchers) have solid lifecycle coverage, but there are notable gaps: order and offer tools are list-only with no create/get/update/delete, supplier invoices lack creation/update, and several analytics return only metadata or structure rather than actual data, causing dead ends.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessResponsive