yimu-mcp

get_book_bills

get_book_bills

Fetch paginated bills for a ledger book, returning income/expense totals, bill count, and hasMoreData to control paging. Specify book_id and page.

Instructions

分页查询账本账单（GET /bill/getAccountBillPage/{userId}/{bookId}/{page}）。返回 {syncTime, hasMoreData, billCount, totals:{income,expense}, bills:[精简账单]}；账单只含 billId/cost/日期/分类/备注/账户等业务字段。page 从 0 起，按 hasMoreData 翻页。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "book_id": "<book_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_book_bills"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	页码，从 0 开始
`book_id`	Yes	账本 ID
`user_id`	No	账本所属用户 ID，缺省用当前用户

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses a read-only GET endpoint, the paginated return envelope, the simplified bill fields, and the hasMoreData pagination signal. It omits auth/permission requirements, ordering, and page-size behavior, but the core behavior is clear.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a compact, front-loaded paragraph that starts with the action and endpoint, then immediately gives return structure and pagination semantics. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return shape and simplified bill fields. Combined with full schema coverage for the three parameters, it is nearly complete, though it could mention access requirements or ordering for a fully self-contained read operation.

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%, so the schema already documents page, book_id, and user_id. The description reinforces page starting at 0 and pagination via hasMoreData, but adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource (分页查询账本账单) and even names the exact GET endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling count/query tools such as get_bill_count and from mutation tools like save_bill.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It explains the pagination mechanics (page starts at 0, use hasMoreData to page) which gives practical usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings like get_bill_count or get_book_last_time, nor does it state exclusions.

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