Skip to main content
Glama
muness

Xero Expenses MCP

by muness

xero_create_receipt

Create a receipt in Xero for later batch expense claims. Capture vendor details, amounts, and descriptions to organize multiple receipts into a single claim submission.

Instructions

Create a receipt WITHOUT submitting as expense claim - use this to batch multiple receipts into one claim later

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vendorNameYesName of the vendor
vendorEmailNoEmail of the vendor (optional)
amountYesTotal amount of the expense
descriptionYesDescription of the expense
accountCodeNoXero expense account code (e.g., '620' for meals)
dateNoReceipt date (YYYY-MM-DD)
referenceNoReference number from the receipt
userIdNoXero user ID (optional, uses first user if not specified)
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a creation operation (not read-only) and specifies the workflow context (batching receipts for later claim submission). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to the created receipt in the system - significant gaps for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose, key behavioral constraint, and usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's perfectly front-loaded with the most important information first.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good workflow context but lacks important details about authentication requirements, error handling, system behavior, and return values. It adequately covers the 'what' and 'when' but misses the 'how' and 'what happens next' aspects that would be important for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a receipt') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly noting it's 'WITHOUT submitting as expense claim' and contrasting with 'xero_create_expense_claim' and 'xero_submit_expense_claim'. This provides precise differentiation from related tools in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to batch multiple receipts into one claim later') and when not to use it ('WITHOUT submitting as expense claim'). It clearly distinguishes this from the expense claim submission workflow, offering clear alternatives among the sibling tools.

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/muness/xero-expenses-mcp'

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