sevdesk MCP Server

create_transaction

Record a new transaction in a check account by specifying amount, value date, and optional details such as payee or purpose.

Instructions

Create a new transaction in a check account

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": {
      "checkAccountId": "<checkAccountId>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "valueDate": "<valueDate>"
    },
    "name": "create_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Transaction amount (positive for credit, negative for debit)
`entryDate`	No
`valueDate`	Yes	Value date (ISO date string YYYY-MM-DD)
`paymtPurpose`	No
`checkAccountId`	Yes	The ID of the check account
`payeePayerName`	No
`payeePayerAcctNo`	No
`payeePayerBankCode`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., does it post the transaction?), or data integrity guarantees.

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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it lacks structure and fails to front-load essential information (e.g., required params, output).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create tool with 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the meaning of 'transaction' in this context or the expected outcome after creation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema's descriptions, which cover only 38% of parameters. Undocumented parameters like entryDate, paymtPurpose, etc., are left unexplained.

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 action ('Create a new transaction') and the resource ('in a check account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that create other entities like tags or contacts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., list_transactions, update_transaction) or prerequisites (e.g., checkAccountId must reference an existing account).

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