camt053-mcp

List journal export targets

list_export_journal_targets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover which accounting platforms are available for journal exports. Check valid target values before exporting to ensure compatibility.

Instructions

List the accounting-platform targets the export_journal tool supports.

Use this to tell a user which ``target`` values ``export_journal`` accepts
before invoking it. This lists export destinations only; for the LLM
classifier's category vocabulary use ``list_classify_entry_categories``.

Returns the sorted list of valid ``target`` arguments accepted by
``export_journal`` (``["qbo", "xero"]`` today). NetSuite and SAP
S/4HANA support is a tracked follow-up.

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": "list_export_journal_targets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.11Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it returns a sorted list of currently two values, and notes future support tracking, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Five concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage guidance, differentiation, return details, and future outlook. Front-loaded with main action.

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?

Given no parameters and presence of output schema (though not detailed), description covers purpose, usage, and return format adequately. Does not need to elaborate on return structure due to output schema.

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?

No parameters in schema, baseline score 4 applies. Description adds no parameter explanation needed and correctly implies no arguments required.

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?

Clearly identifies verb 'list' and resource 'accounting-platform targets'. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_classify_entry_categories' by specifying its different purpose (category vocabulary vs. export destinations).

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?

Explicitly states to use before invoking export_journal to inform user of valid target values. Contrasts with sibling tool but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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