Buchhaltungsbutler MCP

Transactions: assign receipt to transaction

transactions_assign_receipts

Match receipts to the bank transactions they paid by assigning them in batches. Creates reversible links between receipt and transaction records, keeping bookkeeping aligned.

Instructions

🟡 WRITE · links/unlinks records: Creates or removes an assignment between records (e.g. receipt ↔ transaction). Reversible.

assign receipt to transaction

Assign a receipt to a transaction.

Use to match receipts to the bank transactions that paid them, one pair or many at once.

To attach a receipt to a posting rather than a bank transaction, use postings_assign_receipt_to_free.

Takes one or many: pass an array of transactions to receipts in transactions_to_receipts. A single record is an array of one.

Reversible with transactions_unassign_receipt. Creating the link does not book anything: use postings_create_for_transaction to post the transaction.

Endpoint: POST /transactions/assign-batch/receipt

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`transactions_to_receipts`	Yes	list of receipts to transactions maximum of 50 element are allowed

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`errors`	No
`success`	Yes	is the request successful or faulty
`transactions_to_receipts`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.1.3Sep 26, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / errors / items / properties / request_data / type
```
Previous value: -"array"New value: +[
+  "array",
+  "object"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / transactions_to_receipts / items / properties / receipt_id_by_customer / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "integer"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / transactions_to_receipts / items / properties / transaction_id_by_customer / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "integer"
+]
```
Addedv1.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it is a write operation ('WRITE'), reversible, and does not book anything. However, the 'links/unlinks' phrasing is misleading since this tool only links, not unlinks. This minor inaccuracy prevents a perfect score, though the rest is transparent.

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 somewhat redundant: the title is repeated ('assign receipt to transaction'), and the opening sentence duplicates the title's meaning. It could be streamlined without losing information, but it's not overly long.

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?

The description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, what it does not do (does not book), how to reverse, and array semantics. The output schema exists, so return format is not required. This is a complete and helpful definition.

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 documents the parameter and its fields (100% coverage). The description adds a helpful note about passing a single record as an array of one, which clarifies usage. This goes slightly beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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: 'Assign a receipt to a transaction.' It distinguishes from the sibling postings_assign_receipt_to_free. However, the opening phrase 'links/unlinks records: Creates or removes an assignment' inaccurately implies this tool can both create and remove assignments, while the tool only assigns (removal is delegated to transactions_unassign_receipt). This ambiguity slightly reduces clarity.

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 states when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'To attach a receipt to a posting rather than a bank transaction, use postings_assign_receipt_to_free.' Also clarifies that reversibility is handled by transactions_unassign_receipt and that creating the link does not book anything, guiding the agent on the correct workflow.

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

Deploy Server