Mintline MCP Server

create_export

Create an export job for a financial statement. Provide the statement ID and choose to include unmatched transactions. The export runs asynchronously; monitor via polling or webhooks.

Instructions

Create export. Create a new export job. The export will be processed asynchronously. Poll the job status or use webhooks to know when it's ready.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "statementId": "<statementId>",
      "includeUnmatched": "<includeUnmatched>"
    },
    "name": "create_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`statementId`	Yes	Statement ID to export
`includeUnmatched`	Yes	Include unmatched transactions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.1.9May 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses asynchronous behavior and polling/webhook requirement, but lacks details on potential side effects, authentication needs, or error states.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences; the first two are redundant ('Create export. Create a new export job.'), wasting space. The third sentence adds value but overall could be more concise.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should mention return values. It explains async processing but omits what the tool returns (e.g., job ID, status). With 2 parameters and no nested objects, it is somewhat complete but not fully.

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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for statementId and includeUnmatched. It meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 export' and 'Create a new export job', establishing the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_export and list_exports by implying creation versus retrieval.

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?

The description explains that the export is processed asynchronously and advises polling or webhooks to check readiness, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.