Skip to main content
Glama
hlebtkachenko

POHODA MCP Server

pohoda_list_bank

Retrieve bank documents (receipts and expenses) from POHODA accounting software. Filter results by ID, date range, company name, or last changes to access specific financial records.

Instructions

List bank documents (receipts and expenses) from POHODA. Supports filtering by ID, date range, company name, or last changes. Returns JSON array of matching records.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoFilter by bank document ID
dateFromNoFilter from date (DD.MM.YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD)
dateTillNoFilter till date (DD.MM.YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD)
companyNameNoFilter by company name
lastChangesNoFilter by last changes date

Implementation Reference

  • Handler implementation for the "pohoda_list_bank" tool.
    async (params) => {
      try {
        const xml = buildExportRequest(
          { ico: client.ico },
          "lst:listBankRequest",
          NS.lst,
          "lst:requestBank",
          (req) => applyFilter(req, params)
        );
        const response = await client.sendXml(xml);
        const parsed = parseResponse(response);
        const data = extractListData(parsed);
        return jsonResult("Bank documents", data, Array.isArray(data) ? data.length : 0);
      } catch (e) {
        return err((e as Error).message);
      }
    }
  • Registration of the "pohoda_list_bank" tool within the MCP server.
    server.tool(
      "pohoda_list_bank",
      "List bank documents (receipts and expenses) from POHODA. Supports filtering by ID, date range, company name, or last changes. Returns JSON array of matching records.",
      {
        id: z.number().optional().describe("Filter by bank document ID"),
        dateFrom: z.string().optional().describe("Filter from date (DD.MM.YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD)"),
        dateTill: z.string().optional().describe("Filter till date (DD.MM.YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD)"),
        companyName: z.string().optional().describe("Filter by company name"),
        lastChanges: z.string().optional().describe("Filter by last changes date"),
      },
      async (params) => {
        try {
          const xml = buildExportRequest(
            { ico: client.ico },
            "lst:listBankRequest",
            NS.lst,
            "lst:requestBank",
            (req) => applyFilter(req, params)
          );
          const response = await client.sendXml(xml);
          const parsed = parseResponse(response);
          const data = extractListData(parsed);
          return jsonResult("Bank documents", data, Array.isArray(data) ? data.length : 0);
        } catch (e) {
          return err((e as Error).message);
        }
      }
    );
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the return format ('Returns JSON array of matching records'), but omits other behavioral traits like pagination limits, maximum results, or explicit confirmation that this is a read-only/safe operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description consists of two efficient sentences with zero waste: the first establishes purpose and scope, while the second covers filtering capabilities and return format. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately compensates by specifying the return type ('JSON array'). For a 5-parameter listing tool with 100% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides adequate context, though it could be improved with pagination details.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, though it does synthesize the dateFrom/dateTill parameters into the concept of 'date range' which provides slight grouping context.

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 'List bank documents (receipts and expenses) from POHODA', providing a specific verb (List) and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like pohoda_list_invoices or pohoda_list_accountancy by specifying 'bank documents' and clarifying these include 'receipts and expenses'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through the specific entity type ('bank documents'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus pohoda_list_accountancy or other financial listing tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hlebtkachenko/pohoda-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server