Skip to main content
Glama

Create Standard Statements

create_standard_statements
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retain one exact financial source and create its complete ordered set of Standard Statements as one durable FinStat Task. Supply exactly one byte-bearing source: an authorized handle or bounded content_base64; file_name and mime_type may name it either way (a handle otherwise carries its own). The transfer program is the reliable intake: create_upload_sessions, PUT the bytes, pass the returned handle. Inline content_base64 is for small sources only — many MCP clients cap tool arguments in the tens of KB regardless of this schema's bound; if an inline call fails to leave your client, switch to the transfer program rather than shrinking the source. For a statement your agent builds (from a CSV or bank export, say), pass it as statement; the shape is this parameter's schema and guide_canonical_schema. For example: {"type": "checking", "account": {"institution": {"name": "River Bank"}, "number": "1001", "currency": "USD"}, "period": {"start": "2025-01-01", "end": "2025-01-31"}, "controls": {"beginningCents": 200000, "endingCents": 350000}, "transactions": [{"date": "2025-01-15", "description": "PAYROLL", "amountCents": 150000}]}. PDF is the normal case; canonical statement JSON bytes are accepted (exact-byte, no model), as one bare statement or several in the optional {accounts: [{statement}], sourceLabel} envelope: guide_canonical_schema gives the shape, each type's required controls and an example, and with topic csv how to build one from a CSV or bank export. What is not a fact is fixed up and listed in the result's normalized; a missing balance or rows that do not add up are refused, saying what to fix. One source may yield several Standard Statements. Persist taskId. Native clients poll tasks/get; ordinary clients poll tasks_get. Completion returns fresh expiring handles. The source bytes remain unchanged and are not returned. Exact-byte replay recovers the existing creation without another interpretation charge. Register the returned Standard Statements; nothing reaches the workspace until submit. Metered only when new interpretation runs.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleNoA transfer handle naming the source bytes: the upload session's handle after the PUT, or a handle another tool returned.
file_nameNoThe source's file name, e.g. statement.pdf or march.json; .json reads it as canonical statement JSON.
mime_typeNoThe source's media type, e.g. application/pdf or application/json.
statementNoA statement your agent built (from a CSV or bank export, say), as an object: the canonical statement, exactly the shape guide_canonical_schema returns. Exclusive with handle and content_base64; read like canonical JSON bytes, fix-ups and refusals alike.
workspace_tagYesActive workspace id (the workspace_tag create_workspace and list_workspaces return).
content_base64NoThe source bytes inline, base64, for small files: a PDF, or canonical statement JSON (guide_canonical_schema).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description says this tool retains a source, creates a durable FinStat Task, registers returned Standard Statements, persists taskId, and is metered when new interpretation runs. Those are side-effectful creation behaviors, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description therefore contradicts the read-only annotation and fails behavioral transparency despite otherwise rich operational detail.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and follows a logical sequence from source selection to task handling and errors. It is dense and appropriate for a complex tool, though some operational details are repeated and the example adds length. It remains readable and mostly earns its space.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the nested schema, output schema, and complex task semantics, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers source exclusivity, transfer-program flow, inline limits, statement shape, normalization and refusal behavior, task polling, expiring handles, exact-byte replay, and metering. Nothing essential about invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all six parameters in detail. The description still adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema: exactly one byte-bearing source must be supplied, file_name and mime_type may name it either way, and inline content_base64 is practically limited by MCP client argument caps. It also points to guide_canonical_schema for agent-built statement JSON.

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: retaining one exact financial source and creating its complete ordered set of Standard Statements as a durable FinStat Task. It also distinguishes the statement-creation role from helper flows like create_upload_sessions and submit. An agent can tell what this tool produces without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It gives clear source-path guidance: use the transfer program as the reliable intake, use inline content_base64 only for small sources, and switch to transfer rather than shrinking the source if an inline call fails. It also says to pass agent-built statements via the statement parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool against sibling creation tools such as create_standard_book or create_standard_chart.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources