Skip to main content
Glama
hlebtkachenko

POHODA MCP Server

pohoda_list_contracts

List and filter contracts from POHODA accounting software by ID, date range, company name, or last changes to retrieve matching contract records.

Instructions

List contracts from POHODA. Supports filtering by ID, date range, company name, or last changes. Returns JSON array of matching contract records.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoFilter by contract 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

  • The implementation of the `pohoda_list_contracts` tool, including input validation schema and the async handler logic that builds the XML request, sends it to the Pohoda client, and parses the response.
    server.tool(
      "pohoda_list_contracts",
      "List contracts from POHODA. Supports filtering by ID, date range, company name, or last changes. Returns JSON array of matching contract records.",
      {
        id: z.number().optional().describe("Filter by contract 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:listContractRequest",
            NS.lCon,
            "lst:requestContract",
            (req) => {
              const filterParams: ListFilterParams = {
                id: params.id,
                dateFrom: params.dateFrom,
                dateTill: params.dateTill,
                companyName: params.companyName,
                lastChanges: params.lastChanges,
              };
              applyFilter(req, filterParams);
            }
          );
          const response = await client.sendXml(xml);
          const parsed = parseResponse(response);
          const data = extractListData(parsed);
          return jsonResult("Contracts", 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 full burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns JSON array'), which is valuable since no output schema exists. However, it omits other behavioral traits like pagination behavior, result limits, or explicit confirmation that this is read-only (though 'List' implies it).

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 three-sentence structure is efficiently front-loaded: purpose (sentence 1), filtering capabilities (sentence 2), and return format (sentence 3). Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple flat schema (5 optional parameters, no nesting) and absence of annotations/output schema, the description adequately covers the essential information: operation type, filterable fields, and return structure. Minor gap regarding result limits or pagination keeps it from a 5.

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 summarizes the filtering capabilities ('ID, date range, company name, or last changes'), which maps to the schema parameters, but does not add significant semantic depth or usage examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description clearly states 'List contracts from POHODA', providing a specific verb (List), resource (contracts), and system context (POHODA). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like pohoda_create_contract or pohoda_delete_contract through the specific verb choice.

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 'List' operation type, distinguishing it from mutation siblings (create/delete/update). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus other list operations or specific prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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