Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Confirm Transaction

confirm_transaction
Destructive

Confirm a bank transaction by providing distribution rows; set clients_id when missing (e.g. CAMT imports) or approve reassignment when the payer differs from the linked invoice.

Instructions

Confirm a bank transaction by providing distribution rows. If the transaction has no clients_id (common for CAMT imports), pass clients_id — otherwise the API rejects with 'buyer or supplier is missing'. For invoice distributions, clients_id is auto-resolved from the invoice. A transaction whose client differs from the linked invoice's client is refused (linked_invoice_client_mismatch) because the journal takes its client from the transaction; approve the swap with reassign_client_to_invoice. After an invoice-linked confirm the resulting registration journal is re-read and checked against the invoice client and both postings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTransaction ID
clients_idNoClient ID to set on the transaction before confirming (required when transaction has no clients_id and distribution is against accounts, not invoices)
distributionsNoArray of distribution rows: [{related_table: 'accounts'|'purchase_invoices'|'sale_invoices', related_id, related_sub_id?, amount}]. related_id is always REQUIRED (the account or invoice DB ID). related_sub_id is REQUIRED when related_table='accounts' and the account has dimensions — pass the dimension ID (e.g. 1360 has one sub-account per person); the API rejects dimensioned postings without it.
block_on_duplicateNoRefuse an inter-account confirm (distribution to another own bank account) when an existing transfer journal or a possible duplicate bank posting is found (default false: warn only).
reassign_client_to_invoiceNoExplicit approval to replace a differing payer client on the transaction with the linked invoice's client before confirming (default false). Use when a third party paid someone else's invoice: without it the confirm is refused, because the journal's client comes from the transaction and the receivable/payable leg would land in the payer's sub-ledger. bank_account_name (the real payer's name) is never changed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.27.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / block_on_duplicate
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Refuse an inter-account confirm (distribution to another own bank account) when an existing transfer journal or a possible duplicate bank posting is found (default false: warn only).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.25.7
    • addedInput schema / properties / reassign_client_to_invoice
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Explicit approval to replace a differing payer client on the transaction with the linked invoice's client before confirming (default false). Use when a third party paid someone else's invoice: without it the confirm is refused, because the journal's client comes from the transaction and the receivable/payable leg would land in the payer's sub-ledger. bank_account_name (the real payer's name) is never changed.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: rejection with 'buyer or supplier is missing', refusal on client mismatch, auto-resolution from invoices, the reassign approval path, and the post-confirm re-read of the journal. It does not spell out what exactly is destroyed or changed, but the annotation covers the destructive profile and the description adds meaningful edge-case behavior.

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?

The description is longer than typical, but every sentence carries essential behavior: the core action, conditional client handling, mismatch refusal logic, and post-confirm verification. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then progressively details exceptions. Slightly dense but not redundant or padded.

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?

For a complex, destructive confirmation tool with no output schema, the description covers most operational edge cases: CAMT imports, invoice distributions, client mismatches, duplicate handling, and journal re-checking. It does not explicitly describe the return value or success/failure payload, which is a notable gap given there is no output schema, but the failure conditions and side effects are well documented.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining the business context behind the parameters: why clients_id is required for CAMT imports, how invoice-linked distributions auto-resolve the client, and when block_on_duplicate and reassign_client_to_invoice should be used. It goes beyond restating the schema and clarifies parameter interplay in realistic scenarios.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Confirm a bank transaction by providing distribution rows.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling confirm tools (confirm_journal, confirm_sale_invoice) by specifying the bank-transaction context and the distribution-row mechanism. The additional details about CAMT imports and invoice-linked confirms further anchor its scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit conditional guidance: when to pass clients_id (no clients_id, CAMT imports, non-invoice distributions), when clients_id is auto-resolved (invoice distributions), and when to use reassign_client_to_invoice (third-party payer mismatch). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this one, but the context strongly implies the appropriate use cases, so the guidance is clear though not fully comparative.

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