Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create Journal

create_journal

Create journal entries with debit and credit postings, effective dates, currencies, client links, project dimensions, and duplicate detection for accounting records.

Instructions

Create a journal entry with postings

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoJournal entry title (max 100 characters — the API rejects longer titles)
postingsYesPostings [{accounts_id, type: 'D'|'C', amount, accounts_dimensions_id?, base_amount?, projects_project_id?, projects_location_id?, projects_person_id?}]. accounts_dimensions_id is REQUIRED when accounts_id has sub-accounts. base_amount = EUR equivalent for non-EUR entries. projects_* fields link the posting to project tracking dimensions.
clients_idNoRelated client ID
effective_dateYesEntry date (YYYY-MM-DD)
document_numberNoDocument number. Recommended for imported or mechanism-crossing entries: a stable source reference (e.g. WISE:{id}, LY:{ref}, BANK:{stmt-ref}) — used for duplicate detection.
cl_currencies_idNoCurrency (default EUR)
block_on_duplicateNoRefuse creation when a bank posting looks like an already-booked duplicate (default false: warn only).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Previous value: -"Journal entry title"New value: +"Journal entry title (max 100 characters — the API rejects longer titles)"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.25.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / block_on_duplicate
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Refuse creation when a bank posting looks like an already-booked duplicate (default false: warn only).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / document_number / description
      Previous value: -"Document number"New value: +"Document number. Recommended for imported or mechanism-crossing entries: a stable source reference (e.g. WISE:{id}, LY:{ref}, BANK:{stmt-ref}) — used for duplicate detection."
  3. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the safety baseline is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not say whether the created entry is an unconfirmed draft requiring confirm_journal, whether postings must balance, or whether duplicate detection interacts with document_number/block_on_duplicate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriately terse for a tool whose 7 parameters are fully documented in the schema. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but there is no wasted text.

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?

For a mutation tool that creates double-entry postings in a workflow that clearly includes confirm_journal, batch_confirm_journals, and invalidate_journal, the description omits the lifecycle context an agent needs to call it correctly. With no output schema, it also says nothing about what identifier or state comes back. The annotations cover only the safety profile, leaving the substantive gaps unaddressed.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema with constraints and semantics (account dimensions requirement, base_amount EUR equivalent, duplicate detection). The phrase 'with postings' merely restates the postings parameter, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a journal entry') plus the nested content ('with postings'), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. However it offers no differentiation from siblings like update_journal, confirm_journal, or create_transaction, which all operate on overlapping journal/booking concepts.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It never mentions that confirm_journal exists downstream, nor when an agent should create a journal versus a transaction or a purchase invoice. Nothing routes the caller.

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