Buchhaltungsbutler MCP

Receipts: get all transactions assigned to a specific receipt

receipts_list_assigned_transactions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists bank transactions assigned to a specific receipt, helping verify whether an invoice was matched to a payment.

Instructions

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

get all transactions assigned to a specific receipt

Get all transactions assigned to a specific receipt for a specified customer account by id_by_customer. You can get the "id_by_customer" by using the "/receipts/get method" first.

Use to see which bank transactions are linked to a given receipt, for example to check whether an invoice has been matched to a payment.

For the opposite direction, use transactions_list_assigned_receipts.

Endpoint: POST /receipts/assigned-transactions/get

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirmed_only`	No	If true, only confirmed assignments will be returned. If specified, the field will be validated.
`receipt_id_by_customer`	Yes	The id_by_customer of the receipt.

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv1.1.5Nov 1, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / amount / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / booking_date / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / id_by_customer / type
```
Previous value: -[
-  "string",
-  "integer"
-]New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "integer",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / purpose / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / to_from / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / value_date / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.3Sep 26, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / id_by_customer / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "integer"
+]
```
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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and destructiveness, so the '🟢 READ-ONLY' banner is largely redundant. What the description does add beyond structured fields is the lookup prerequisite and the semantic direction of the relationship, plus the endpoint, but it says nothing about result size or empty-match behavior.

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 purpose and direction, and the alternative follows the usage sentence. It loses a point for redundancy: the read-only banner restates annotations and the bolded heading repeats the title verbatim.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the prerequisite plus inverse tool cover the main gaps for a simple two-parameter read. Minor omissions (pagination, what an empty assignment list means) keep it from a 5.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns the extra point by explaining where `receipt_id_by_customer` comes from rather than just naming it. `confirmed_only` is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 transactions assigned to a specific receipt') and scopes it to a customer-account id. It also names the inverse sibling `transactions_list_assigned_receipts`, so an agent can pick between the two directions without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('to check whether an invoice has been matched to a payment'), gives the opposite-direction alternative by name, and states the prerequisite of obtaining `id_by_customer` via `/receipts/get` first. This is full when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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

Deploy Server