Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sevdesk-mcp

sevdesk-mcp

by joosthel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List vouchers (Belege)

sevdesk_list_vouchers
Read-only

Lists incoming and outgoing vouchers filtered by date, status, and supplier, returning bookkeeping fields like gross, net, tax, and decoded VAT treatment. Read-only.

Instructions

List incoming/outgoing vouchers with the fields that matter for bookkeeping: date, supplier, gross/net/tax, status and the decoded VAT treatment. Read-only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEnd date, dd.mm.yyyy or yyyy-mm-dd.
fromNoStart date, dd.mm.yyyy or yyyy-mm-dd.
limitNoMaximum rows to return (default 200).
statusNoFilter by status.
maxItemsNoFetch cap: how many records are read from sevDesk before filtering (default 2000).
supplierNoCase-insensitive substring of the supplier name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Added value: +1000
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / maxItems
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Fetch cap: how many records are read from sevDesk before filtering (default 2000).",
+  "maximum": 20000,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; 'Read-only' in the description is redundant. It does add real value by disclosing which fields come back, which matters since there is no output schema. However, the two-tier retrieval behavior implied by 'limit' vs 'maxItems' (rows returned vs records fetched before filtering) is not explained anywhere, and that is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance the description should surface.

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 an efficient colon-delimited field list; nothing is buried or padded. The trailing 'Read-only' is the one wasted clause since it duplicates the annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is a valuable addition and carries the return-value burden reasonably well. But for a six-parameter, zero-required listing tool with a non-obvious fetch-cap vs row-limit distinction, the description leaves an agent guessing about the maxItems/limit interplay and about paging strategy.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's field list gestures at date/supplier/status filtering but adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('List incoming/outgoing vouchers') plus a concrete enumeration of the returned fields (date, supplier, gross/net/tax, status, decoded VAT treatment), which makes the tool's scope tangible. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as sevdesk_list_invoices, sevdesk_list_transactions, or sevdesk_get_voucher, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never states when to reach for this tool versus sevdesk_list_invoices, sevdesk_list_transactions, or sevdesk_get_voucher, despite that being the main selection ambiguity in this sibling set. 'Read-only' is the only routing hint and it merely restates the annotation, not a usage condition.

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