Skip to main content
Glama
ohneben

Buchhaltungsbutler MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Postings: unconfirm free posting

postings_unconfirm_free
Idempotent

Revert a free posting's confirmation to return it to an unconfirmed state for correction. Only applies to non-fixed postings.

Instructions

🟡 WRITE · reverts state: Reverts a prior state change (un-confirm a posting, restore a deleted receipt). Reversible.

unconfirm free posting

Remove a specified free posting by unconfirming it. This will only work if the posting is not fixed.

Use to send a free posting back to the unconfirmed state so it can be corrected.

This keeps the posting and only clears its confirmation. To remove the posting itself, use postings_cancel.

Only works while the posting is not fixed. Fixed postings can no longer be unconfirmed.

Endpoint: POST /postings/unconfirm/free

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
posting_id_by_customerYesThe id_by_customer of the free posting.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoSuccess message
successYesSuccess boolean

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.2
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Success message",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "Success boolean",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / api_key
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional. The BB customer api_key to act on. Defaults to the BB_API_KEY configured on the server — only set this to target a different customer.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that this is a reversible state revert, that it keeps the posting, and that it only clears confirmation. It also discloses the fixed-posting restriction. The mention of 'restore a deleted receipt' is ambiguous and not consistently integrated with the rest of the behavior description, so it slightly weakens an otherwise transparent explanation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the WRITE indicator and core effect, which is good)Skip. However, it is repetitive: the fixed-posting constraint is stated twice ('This will only work if the posting is not fixed' and 'Only works while the posting is not fixed'), and the broad 'restore a deleted receipt' line adds ambiguity. It could be tightened without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the effect, reversibility, the fixed-posting limitation, and the alternative for deletion. It does not define what 'fixed' means, and the confusing 'restore a deleted receipt' phrase is left unresolved, but overall an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, posting_id_by_customer, and the schema already describes it as 'The id_by_customer of the free posting.' The description refers to 'a specified free posting' but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies due to full schema description coverage.

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?

The core purpose is clear: 'unconfirm free posting' and 'Remove a specified free posting by unconfirming it.' It also distinguishes itself from postings_cancel by noting that this tool keeps the posting while cancellation removes it. However, the opening line mentions 'restore a deleted receipt,' which is not clearly part of this tool's specific action and could mislead an agent about its scope.

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 explicitly states when to use it: to send a free posting back to the unconfirmed state so it can be corrected. It also gives a clear when-not condition: it only works if the posting is not fixed. It names a concrete alternative, postings_cancel, for when the posting itself should be removed.

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