Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nubiia-dev

MCP Holded

by nubiia-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_expenses_account

Creates a new expenses account in Holded with a required name and optional PGC account code. Use it to add expense accounts for categorizing and tracking business spending.

Instructions

Create a new expenses account (Holded API v2)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoPGC account number (e.g. "62900000"). This is the value surfaced as `accountNum` by list_expenses_accounts — Holded accepts it under the `code` key on create/update.
nameYesExpenses account name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / code / description
      Previous value: -"Account code"New value: +"PGC account number (e.g. \"62900000\"). This is the value surfaced as `accountNum` by list_expenses_accounts — Holded accepts it under the `code` key on create/update."
  2. First observedv1.6.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it only implies a write operation via "Create". It says nothing about permission requirements, idempotency, duplicate-name/code handling, or what the call returns on success or failure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence with zero waste and the verb front-loaded. Its brevity borders on under-specification, but nothing extraneous is present.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose side effects or expected response, which it does not. The rich parameter schema offsets this somewhat, but the behavioral picture an agent needs to call a create endpoint safely is missing.

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 schema itself carries the meaningful semantics (notably the `code`/`accountNum` mapping to list_expenses_accounts). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Create") and resource ("expenses account"), so an agent knows the operation immediately. However it does not distinguish this from adjacent siblings such as create_accounting_account or create_bank_account, leaving the agent to infer which account type applies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_accounting_account, create_bank_account, or update_expenses_account. No prerequisites (e.g. existing chart of accounts, required permissions) or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools