Retrieve and filter QuickBooks Online payment records using access tokens and realm IDs, with pagination and sandbox support for integration workflows.
Query QuickBooks Online payments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| where | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| sandbox | No | ||
| realm_id | Yes | ||
| access_token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating 'Query'—no mention of authentication needs (access_token/realm_id required), rate limits, pagination behavior, or response format. It adds nothing meaningful beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise given the tool's six parameters and zero schema coverage. It reads more like a placeholder than a deliberately trimmed definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With six parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a non-trivial auth requirement (access_token + realm_id), the description should do far more to make the tool callable correctly. As written, an agent lacks the information needed to use the 'where' filter, paginate results, or understand what fields payments contain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for all six parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It does not mention limit, offset, where, sandbox, realm_id, or access_token, leaving the QuickBooks-specific 'where' syntax and pagination semantics completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a verb ('Query') and resource ('QuickBooks Online payments'), so the basic purpose is discernible. However, the verb is vague (list vs. search vs. filter) and the description does nothing to distinguish it from closely related siblings like quickbooks_invoices, quickbooks_customers, or xero_payments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer everything about appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.