Skip to main content
Glama
laf-rge

QuickBooks MCP

by laf-rge

create_bill

Create a vendor bill by providing vendor, account, or department names, which are automatically matched to IDs. Returns bill details and a link to view in QuickBooks.

Instructions

Create a vendor bill. Accepts vendor/account/department names (will lookup IDs automatically). Note: DepartmentRef is header-level only — for multi-department splits, create separate bills (one per department). Returns bill details and a link to view in QuickBooks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vendor_nameNoVendor display name (e.g., 'Simplisafe', 'PG&E'). Will be looked up to get ID.
vendor_idNoVendor ID (use if you already know it, otherwise use vendor_name)
txn_dateYesTransaction date in YYYY-MM-DD format
due_dateNoDue date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional)
department_nameNoHeader-level department/location name (e.g., '20358', 'Cotati'). Will be looked up to get ID.
department_idNoHeader-level department/location ID (use if you already know it, otherwise use department_name)
ap_accountNoAccounts Payable account name or number (optional, defaults to standard AP)
memoNoPrivate memo for the bill
doc_numberNoReference number for the bill (optional)
linesYesArray of expense line items. Provide account_name OR account_id (name preferred).
draftNoIf true, validate and show preview without creating (default: true)
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-lookup behavior and the header-only department constraint. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential side effects of creation, or error handling behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 description is two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose and auto-lookup feature. The second delivers a critical constraint and return info. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview, including a key constraint. It could be more complete by detailing the return format (e.g., what fields are in 'bill details') and the draft parameter's behavior beyond 'validate and show preview'.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the auto-lookup mechanism and the department constraint, which are not fully captured in individual parameter descriptions. This goes beyond a baseline of 3.

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?

The description clearly states 'Create a vendor bill' and mentions key capabilities like auto-lookup of names. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_bill_payment or create_expense, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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 provides specific guidance: for multi-department splits, create separate bills. It also explains the draft parameter. However, it lacks comparative guidance on when to use this tool versus other creation tools (e.g., create_expense, create_journal_entry), which limits decision support.

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/laf-rge/quickbooks-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server