Buchhaltungsbutler MCP

Accounts: get all the accounts

accounts_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists bank, cash, and credit-card accounts to resolve an account name to its numeric ID for transaction tools.

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON 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 changedv1.1.3Sep 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's READ-ONLY statement agrees with them. Beyond the annotations, it adds meaningful behavioral context: 'v1 offers no update or delete endpoint for accounts. An account created here can only be listed afterwards.' It also reveals the non-obvious endpoint POST /accounts/get. This adds value without contradicting structured metadata.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the READ-ONLY warning, purpose, and scope appear first, with the alternative and limitation following. The repeated header 'get all the accounts' is mildly redundant with the title, but the overall length is appropriate and every major section adds useful context.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers all needed operational context: what the tool returns conceptually, why an agent would call it, which sibling to use instead, and the API's limitation of no update/delete. There are no critical gaps that would prevent correct invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not introduce any parameter expectations or ambiguity; it simply describes an unrestricted list operation. There is no parameter-related information missing.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Use to list the bank, cash and credit-card accounts that transactions can be booked against'. It also actively differentiates from the chart of accounts by stating 'Not the chart of accounts' and naming `postingaccounts_list` as the tool for posting account numbers, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

It explicitly gives the use case: resolve an account name to the numeric `account` id expected by transaction tools. It also provides an explicit alternative and exclusion: 'Not the chart of accounts. For posting account numbers such as 1200 or 4400, use `postingaccounts_list`.' This is concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server