Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Accounting Inbox

accounting_inbox
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan your workspace to plan safe accounting next steps, or run dry-run actions for bank, Wise, and receipt matching suggestions.

Instructions

Merged accounting inbox. mode='scan' recommends safe next steps; mode='dry_run' also runs safe dry-run steps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoWorkflow phase. scan plans; dry_run runs safe dry-run steps.
max_depthNoOptional scan depth (default 2, max 4).
workspace_pathNoOptional folder to scan. Defaults to the current workspace.
bank_account_dimension_idNoOptional default bank account dimension to reuse for CAMT and receipt suggestions.
wise_account_dimension_idNoOptional bank account dimension to use specifically for Wise suggestions.
receipt_matching_dimension_idNoOptional bank account dimension to use specifically for receipt matching suggestions.
wise_inter_account_dimension_idNoOptional own bank account dimension that Wise transfers go to and from (answers the wise_inter_account_dimension_id question; becomes the Wise step's inter_account_dimension_id). Ignored unless it is one of the other bank accounts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / wise_inter_account_dimension_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional own bank account dimension that Wise transfers go to and from (answers the wise_inter_account_dimension_id question; becomes the Wise step's inter_account_dimension_id). Ignored unless it is one of the other bank accounts.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds a useful behavioral distinction: mode='scan' plans, mode='dry_run' actually executes dry-run steps. However it doesn't disclose the safety guarantees of these steps, what a 'recommendation' contains, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is a modest addition.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Slightly more context on the workflow itself would have been warranted, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a complex 7-parameter workflow tool with an open-world annotation, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what 'safe next steps' means, what the inbox merges, or what the result looks like. The schema carries parameter semantics, but overall context is barely sufficient.

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%, so all seven parameters are already well documented in the schema, including defaults for max_depth and per-field meanings of the four dimension_id parameters. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the tool ('Merged accounting inbox') and distinguishes the two modes, but 'Merged accounting inbox' is a vague noun phrase with no verb. Among dozens of siblings in the accounting surface (reconcile_bank_transactions, continue_accounting_workflow, recommend_workflow, analyze_unconfirmed_transactions), an agent cannot tell what this scans, what 'recommends safe next steps' means concretely, or when this is preferred. Purpose is discernible but weakly differentiated.

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?

The description explains the difference between the two modes but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recommend_workflow, continue_accounting_workflow, classify_bank_transactions, or the various reconcile_* tools. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools