Skip to main content
Glama

codat

by io.usefulapi

Get cash flow statement

codat_get_cash_flow_statement
Read-only

Get a company's cash flow statement, broken into periods. periodLength and periodsToCompare are BOTH required by Codat. Codat API: GET /companies/{companyId}/data/financials/cashFlowStatement.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyIdYesThe Codat companyId (UUID).
startMonthNoFirst month of the earliest period (YYYY-MM-DD); defaults to the most recent.
periodLengthYesNumber of months per period (1-12). Required.
periodsToCompareYesHow many periods to return (1-12). Required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, making the read nature clear. The description adds that the statement is 'broken into periods' and references the underlying Codat API, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, error conditions) are disclosed.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose. The second sentence about the API endpoint is not essential for an MCP agent but is not excessively verbose. Efficient overall.

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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description states the basic purpose and required params but does not explain the structure of the returned cash flow statement or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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% with all parameters described. The description only reiterates that periodLength and periodsToCompare are required, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description clearly states the tool gets a cash flow statement broken into periods, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling financial statement tools (e.g., balance sheet, profit and loss), but the resource is distinct enough.

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?

The description emphasizes that periodLength and periodsToCompare are both required, which is helpful but already in the schema. It does not provide context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_balance_sheet or get_profit_and_loss.

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

All codat toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action (e.g., companies, connections, invoices, financial statements). Even similar-looking tools like the three financial statements are clearly differentiated by their names and descriptions. No overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the consistent pattern 'codat_verb_noun' (e.g., codat_create_company, codat_list_invoices, codat_get_balance_sheet). No mixing of styles or irregular naming.

Tool Count5/5

28 tools cover the main read and refresh operations across Codat's domain (companies, connections, accounting data, integrations). The count feels well-scoped for a data aggregation platform, not excessive.

Completeness3/5

The tool set focuses heavily on reading and listing data, with only create for companies/connections and refresh triggers. Missing update/delete for many entities (e.g., invoices, bills). An escape hatch exists but is GET-only. Notable gaps for write workflows.

Resources