Buchhaltungsbutler MCP

Receipts: get receipt by id_by_customer

receipts_get_by_id

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a specific receipt by its per-customer ID, optionally including the file as base64. This read-only operation returns the receipt data.

Instructions

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

get receipt by id_by_customer

Get a single receipt for a specified customer account by id_by_customer. You can get the "id_by_customer" by using the "/receipts/get method" first. The response includes an array of receipt data.

Use to fetch a single receipt whose id you already have.

To search or page through receipts, use receipts_list.

id_by_customer is the per-customer counter shown in the BuchhaltungsButler UI, not a global database id.

Endpoint: POST /receipts/get/id_by_customer

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`get_file`	No	If true, the file will be included as a base64 encoded string (e_invoice_type = 0 -> standard pdf file, e_invoice_type = 1 -> ZUGFeRD pdf file, e_invoice_type = 2 -> xRechnung xml file). If specified, the field will be validated.
`id_by_customer`	Yes	Required per-customer record ID obtained from the corresponding list tool.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	An array of receipt data
`message`	No	blank
`success`	Yes	Success boolean

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed15 schema fields changedv1.1.3Sep 26, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / id_by_customer
```
Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required per-customer record ID obtained from the corresponding list tool.",
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "id_by_customer"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / account / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / amount / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / amount_original / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / currency_original / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / date_delivery / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / date_payment_due / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / e_invoice_type / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "integer"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / exchangerate / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / invoicenumber / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / link_to_receipt_id_by_customer / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / payment_date / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / payment_reference / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / vat / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
Addedv1.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY' and 'Makes no changes to the accounting records.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the ID is a per-customer counter (not global) and the response includes an array of receipt data. No contradictions exist, and the added context is meaningful, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 with the safety note. Each sentence has a purpose: safety, title clarification, description, usage guidance, alternative, and ID semantics. It's not overly verbose, though the title repetition and endpoint line could be trimmed. Overall, it is efficient and readable.

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?

Given the presence of a rich input schema (100% coverage), clear annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, what the ID means, and how to obtain it. It doesn't mention error scenarios or edge cases, but these are minor for a simple lookup tool. The description effectively complements the structured metadata.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description supplements this by defining `id_by_customer` as a per-customer counter shown in the UI, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. This adds semantic value beyond the schema's basic description, so a 4 is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a single receipt for a specified customer account by id_by_customer.' It explicitly distinguishes from the list tool by noting that searches/paging use `receipts_list`, and it clarifies that the ID is a per-customer counter, not a global database ID. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated 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?

The description gives explicit usage direction: 'Use to fetch a single receipt whose id you already have' and directly contrasts with searching/paging via `receipts_list`. It also explains how to obtain the ID using the '/receipts/get method' first, giving a clear workflow. This fully covers when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

Deploy Server