Skip to main content
Glama
ohneben

Buchhaltungsbutler MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Transactions: unassign a specific receipt from a transaction

transactions_unassign_receipt

Remove a receipt-to-transaction link to undo an incorrect assignment. The link is removed without deleting the receipt or transaction, restoring them to unassigned state.

Instructions

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

unassign a specific receipt from a transaction

Unassign a specific receipt from a transaction.

Use to undo a receipt-to-transaction match that was made in error.

Removes only the link. Neither the receipt nor the transaction is deleted.

Endpoint: POST /transactions/unassign/receipt

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
receipt_id_by_customerYesThe id_by_customer of the receipt to unassign.
transaction_id_by_customerYesThe id_by_customer of the transaction.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoblank
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": "blank",
+      "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?

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable specifics: it is reversible, removes only the link, and neither the receipt nor the transaction is deleted. This goes beyond the annotation defaults and clarifies the exact effect.

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 has some redundancy: the opening line '🟡 WRITE · links/unlinks records...' is generic and repeats the core idea of unassigning, and the bold heading duplicates the following sentence. However, the overall length is manageable and information is organized logically.

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 simple unlink operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential points: the use case, the effect (removes link, no deletion), and reversibility. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for this straightforward action.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions ('The id_by_customer of the receipt to unassign', 'The id_by_customer of the transaction'). The tool description does not add additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'unassign' and the resource 'a specific receipt from a transaction', distinguishing it from the sibling transactions_assign_receipts. It explicitly says it removes only the link, which separates it from delete operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a specific use case: 'Use to undo a receipt-to-transaction match that was made in error.' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. The context is sufficient for an agent to choose this over assign operations.

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