Skip to main content
Glama

HelloBooks AI Agents

by ai.hellobooks.agents

practice_management_info

Return HelloCPA Practice Management info — the standalone product at practice.hellobooks.ai for running a CPA / CA / bookkeeping practice (proposals + CPQ, workflow, time tracking, billing, 6-role RBAC, Gmail/Outlook/Calendar sync, CSV migration from TaxDome / Karbon / Canopy). NOT the Partner Program and NOT a tier in list_plans. Per-user pricing model — US shipped at $9.99/user/month (free up to 2 users + 10 clients, 90-day trial, enterprise at 50+ users). 7 other markets (IN, GB, AU, CA, AE, SG, NZ) are roadmap as of 2026-06-12. Call with no args for the full 8-region matrix + features + meta, or with country for one region's status + pricing + competitor frame.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNoISO country code. Omit to get the full 8-region matrix. US is shipped; the other 7 are roadmap as of 2026-06-12.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating it returns info, and it discloses availability status (US shipped, others roadmap). However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or read-only.

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?

The description is three sentences long, each containing essential information: product definition, distinctions, pricing, markets, and usage. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers the return content, usage modes, pricing, market availability, and sibling differentiations.

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% for the single country parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the two usage modes (omit for full matrix, include for single region) and listing the specific country codes and their status. This goes beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns HelloCPA Practice Management info, defines the product, and distinguishes it from the Partner Program and list_plans. It uses specific verbs and resource references.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use this tool (to get PM info) and what not to use it for (NOT Partner Program, NOT a tier in list_plans). It also explains the two calling conventions: with or without country argument.

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

All HelloBooks AI Agents 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify the exact input and use case. Even similar tools like QBO vs Xero journal analyzers are differentiated by source system and specific checks, leaving no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., analyze_balance_sheet, list_features). A few exceptions like how_munimji_helps and feature_search deviate slightly, but overall the convention is consistent and readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 26 tools covering financial analysis, compliance, migration, and product info, the count is on the higher side but justified by the breadth of the accounting domain. Each tool serves a specific need without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers all major financial statement checks (balance sheet, P&L, trial balance, journal entries), compliance, migration, and product details. A notable gap is the lack of cash flow analysis, but the set is otherwise comprehensive for its scope.

Resources