freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent_get_balance_sheet

Read-only

Retrieve a FreeAgent balance sheet, optionally as of a specific date, to review assets, liabilities, and equity for accounting reporting.

Instructions

Get the balance sheet from FreeAgent, optionally as at a specific date

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "freeagent_get_balance_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`as_at_date`	No	Date to retrieve the balance sheet as at, in YYYY-MM-DD format

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0Nov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.3.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the date is optional, but never states what the default is (today? period end?) or what the response contains — meaningful gaps for a balance-sheet report that has no output schema.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and ending with the optional qualifier; nothing is wasted. 'from FreeAgent' is slightly redundant given the naming prefix, but harmless.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A simple read-only report tool with one optional parameter is mostly self-explanatory, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema, the description should say what a balance sheet response looks like or what the default date resolves to; it does neither.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter and its YYYY-MM-DD format are already documented. The description reinforces optionality but adds no format, timezone, or historical-period detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get the balance sheet'), which is clearly separable from sibling financial reports like freeagent_get_profit_and_loss, get_trial_balance, and get_opening_balances. It doesn't explicitly call out that distinction, but the resource name itself does the work.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus the other financial-report siblings, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether books must be finalized). The only usage hint is the implied 'call without a date to get the current position', which requires inference.

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

Deploy Server