Skip to main content
Glama
ninetails-io

gnucash-mcp

create_party

Create a customer, vendor, or employee in GnuCash accounting, returning the assigned ID for later transactions. Each call adds a fresh party without checking for duplicates.

Instructions

Create a customer, vendor, or employee.

Additive: each call creates a fresh party — names are NOT checked for duplicates, so list_parties first when unsure. Returns the assigned ID (e.g., "000001"), the handle every later call wants. ID counters are PER TYPE: customer 000001 and vendor 000001 are different parties, which is why party_type is required everywhere.

Args: party_type: "customer" (pays you), "vendor" (you pay), or "employee" (expense-voucher workflows). name: Party name (e.g., "Acme Corp", "Jane Smith"). currency: ISO currency code (e.g., "USD", "EUR"). Defaults to book's default currency. notes: Optional notes (max 4096 characters). Employees have no notes field — rejected, not ignored. address: Optional address with keys: name, addr1, addr2, addr3, addr4, phone, fax, email. Each sub-field capped at 1024 characters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
notesNoOptional notes. Capped at 4096 characters at the MCP boundary; oversize input rejects with a clear error.
addressNo
currencyNo
party_typeYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Addedv1.4.4

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, idempotent=false, etc. The description adds materially beyond that: additive behavior, no duplicate checking, per-type ID counters, employee notes rejection, and the returned ID handle. No contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed but every sentence adds value. Key behavioral warnings are front-loaded, and the Args section is cleanly structured with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity and minimal schema documentation, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, return value, parameter semantics, and edge cases like employee notes. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is only 20%, but the description documents all five parameters with meaning: party_type roles, currency defaulting, notes 4096 cap and employee rejection, name examples, and address sub-fields with caps. It fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Create a customer, vendor, or employee.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_parties, get_party, update_party, and delete_party.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'each call creates a fresh party — names are NOT checked for duplicates, so list_parties first when unsure.' It names the relevant alternative tool and explains when to use it, plus clarifies party_type semantics.

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

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/ninetails-io/gnucash-mcp'

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