Buchhaltungsbutler MCP

Accounts: get all the accounts

accounts_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List bank, cash, and credit-card accounts to resolve account names to the numeric IDs required by transaction tools. This is not the chart of accounts.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY: Fetches data. Makes no changes to the accounting records.

get all the accounts

Use to list the bank, cash and credit-card accounts that transactions can be booked against, e.g. to resolve an account name to the numeric account id the transaction tools expect.

Not the chart of accounts. For posting account numbers such as 1200 or 4400, use postingaccounts_list.

v1 offers no update or delete endpoint for accounts. An account created here can only be listed afterwards.

Endpoint: POST /accounts/get

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	An array of accounts data
`rows`	No	Number of returned rows
`message`	No	blank
`success`	Yes	Success boolean

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.5Nov 1, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / name / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.3Sep 26, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / postingaccount_number / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
Addedv1.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The read-only preamble largely restates the annotations, but the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the v1 lifecycle constraint that accounts can only be listed after creation (no update/delete endpoint) and the underlying endpoint POST /accounts/get. That lifecycle note meaningfully affects how an agent plans around this resource.

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?

Front-loaded with scope, then usage, then sibling exclusion, then lifecycle caveat — a sensible order with no wasted sentences. Minor deduction for the emoji/bold banner and repeated "get all the accounts" restating the title.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and rich annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing: it knows the scope, the alternatives, the downstream id contract, and the immutability constraint of the resource.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description justifies that by explaining what the returned list is keyed on and how the numeric `account` id is meant to be consumed downstream, which is useful framing even with no inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("get all the accounts") and immediately narrows the domain to "the bank, cash and credit-card accounts that transactions can be booked against." It explicitly separates itself from `postingaccounts_list`, so the resource boundary is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ("resolve an account name to the numeric `account` id the transaction tools expect") and an explicit exclusion with a redirect to `postingaccounts_list` for posting account numbers like 1200/4400. No inference required.

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

Deploy Server