Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Storno CLI

Storno CLI

Official
by stornoro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

invoices_export_payments_saga_xml

Read-onlyIdempotent

Export supplier payments in Saga XML for accounting software integration, with optional date filtering and cash, bank, or card account overrides.

Instructions

Export supplier payments (plati) in Saga XML format. Exports the incoming invoice payments in the given period (all of them when no period is passed) for accounting software integration. Use accountCash/accountBank/accountCard to override the chart-of-accounts for this export (defaults come from the company’s stored SAGA settings).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateToNoEnd date (YYYY-MM-DD, payment date)
dateFromNoStart date (YYYY-MM-DD, payment date). Pass a period: without one the whole history is exported.
companyIdNoCompany UUID override (uses active company if not set)
accountBankNoOverride bank transfer account (e.g. 5121)
accountCardNoOverride card analytic account (e.g. 5125.2)
accountCashNoOverride cash account (e.g. 5311)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.57
    • addedInput schema / properties / dateFrom
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD, payment date). Pass a period: without one the whole history is exported.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / dateTo
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "End date (YYYY-MM-DD, payment date)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.17

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: the fallback that omitting the period exports the entire history, and that account overrides default to the company's stored SAGA settings — a side effect an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with verb+resource, then period behavior, then parameter guidance — no filler. Slight waste from restating "export" three times and from the supplier/incoming wording, which adds ambiguity rather than information.

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?

A read-only, six-parameter export with full schema coverage and annotations; the description covers scope, defaults, and override semantics. The remaining gap is what the tool actually returns (inline XML vs. a downloadable artifact needing exports_download), which has no output schema to cover it.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; the description adds the fact that the account overrides exist specifically to replace chart-of-accounts defaults sourced from SAGA settings, which the schema does not state. It does not explain the interaction between dateFrom/dateTo beyond what schema already covers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (export payments in Saga XML format), which is legible against most siblings. However, the first sentence says "supplier payments (plati)" while the second says "incoming invoice payments," which are opposite flows, and no sibling (invoices_export_saga_xml, invoices_export_receipts_saga_xml, suppliers_export_saga_xml) is named to disambiguate.

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?

Gives context ("for accounting software integration") and a key behavioral rule (no period = all history), which implies when to call it. It never says when to use this instead of the sibling SAGA exports, nor any prerequisites such as SAGA settings having been configured.

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