fiken-mcp

fiken_list_journal_entries

Read-only

Retrieve all general journal entries for your company with optional filters by date, page, and last modified time.

Instructions

Returns all general journal entries for the company

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fiken_list_journal_entries"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`page`	No
`dateGe`	No
`dateGt`	No
`dateLe`	No
`dateLt`	No
`pageSize`	No
`lastModifiedGe`	No
`lastModifiedLe`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint indicates safety, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior despite the presence of page and pageSize parameters. It also omits details about filtering or sorting.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail for a tool with 9 optional parameters. It trades conciseness for completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention filtering capabilities, pagination, or what fields are returned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only the 'date' parameter has a brief description in the schema. The tool description adds no meaning to parameters, failing to compensate for low schema coverage (11%). No explanation of date filters like dateGe, dateGt, etc.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns general journal entries. It uses a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'general journal entries', but does not distinguish from sibling tools like fiken_list_transactions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fiken_list_transactions or fiken_get_journal_entry. The description lacks context for selection.

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

Deploy Server