gnucash-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_jobs

Read-only

List GnuCash jobs with optional filters by owner, active status, and pagination. Retrieve full details for a specific job or a count-only summary.

Instructions

List jobs, optionally filtered.

Leads with a Showing X-Y of Z jobs line; page with offset, or pass limit=0 for the count only.

Pass id for one job's full details (name, owner, active state, linked invoice/bill IDs) — the exact-lookup mode that replaced get_job.

Args: id: Job ID for a single-job detail lookup (e.g., "000001"). All other filters are ignored. owner_type: Filter by "customer" or "vendor". Omit for all. owner_id: Filter by specific customer or vendor ID (requires owner_type). active_only: If True (default), exclude inactive jobs. verbose: If false (default), compact text output — optimized for reading and token efficiency. If true, structured JSON, for when you need machine-readable fields rather than a report. limit: Page size (default 50, max 250). 0 = count only. offset: 0-indexed first row to return (default 0).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`verbose`	No
`owner_id`	No
`owner_type`	No
`active_only`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.4Sep 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Id"
+}

First observedv1.4.2Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses substantial behavior: the 'Showing X-Y of Z jobs' header, pagination behavior, limit=0 count mode, exact-lookup mode ignoring other filters, active_only default, and verbose text/JSON output modes. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key behaviors, then organized into a compact Args block where each parameter earns its place. Despite covering many details, nothing feels redundant or padded.

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?

All parameters are documented, defaults are stated, cross-parameter constraints are called out, and output formats are described. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for all seven parameters. It explains every parameter, including defaults, allowed values for owner_type, the dependency of owner_id on owner_type, the limit=0 special case, and verbose output behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List jobs, optionally filtered') and then clarifies two distinct modes: a general filtered list and an exact single-job lookup via id. It explicitly notes this lookup mode replaced get_job, which distinguishes it from related job operations.

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 tool gives clear context for when to use id-based lookup versus the list mode, and explains pagination/count-only usage. It does not explicitly contrast with a current sibling like get_job_report, though it does signal the removed get_job alternative.

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

Deploy Server