Skip to main content
Glama

schedule-iii

by com.datavrn

Copy last period’s capture answers

copy_capture_declarations

Copy the previous period’s "nothing this period" and "does not apply" answers into this period, for sections that have no answer yet. It NEVER copies a review confirmation — a review is about this period’s content and cannot be inherited. Last period’s answer is not evidence about this period: list what it would copy to your user, section by section, and get their go-ahead before calling it. Answers already recorded for this period are left alone. Generate a fresh version after your last capture change — finalisation checks the version’s frozen capture state, not today’s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_idYesThe entity (client) id — from list_clients.
period_idYes
template_idYes
on_behalf_ofNoThe email address your user signs in to Datavrn with. This records who authorised the change alongside the connection that made it. REQUIRED on an API-key connection — ask your user for it, do not guess. On an OAuth connection leave it out: the change is recorded as authorised by the member who connected; if you do supply it, it must be that member.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it never copies review confirmations, skips sections with existing answers, and warns about the version/finalisation dependency ('finalisation checks the version’s frozen capture state'). These are non-obvious behaviors not otherwise visible.

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?

Four sentences, each contributing distinct information: the core action, exclusions, user approval requirement, and versioning caveat. No filler or redundancy, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, exclusions, prerequisites, existing-answer preservation, and finalisation impact. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. It is sufficiently complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 50% (client_id and on_behalf_of have descriptions). The description indirectly clarifies period_id by distinguishing 'previous period' from 'this period', but does not explain template_id or map the parameters explicitly. It adds some semantic value but leaves gaps.

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 the exact action: 'Copy the previous period’s "nothing this period" and "does not apply" answers into this period, for sections that have no answer yet.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it never copies a review confirmation, which separates it from confirm_capture_review.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'get their go-ahead before calling it' sets a prerequisite, and 'Answers already recorded for this period are left alone' defines scope. It also excludes review confirmations, giving clear when-not-to-use guidance, even though it does not name alternative tools.

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

All schedule-iii 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action — get_* reads, save_* writes, confirm_* approves, preview_* shows consequences before approval. Even the management-data trio (budgets, allocations, variance) is cleanly separated by surface. Two-step flows like preview_chart_rebaseline → confirm_complete_chart are clearly sequenced, so an agent won't confuse the stages.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern: get_* for reads, list_* for discovery, save_* for section writes, confirm_* for approvals, create_* for new entities/centres, preview_* for pre-approval checks. The few one-offs (ingest_upload, upload_trial_balance, set_header_row) still fit the verb-first convention. No camelCase or style mixing.

Tool Count2/5

At 67 tools this is well past the 'too many' threshold. While the Schedule III domain genuinely is broad — statutorily mandated sections, two-phase approval flows, readiness checks, and a separate management-data area — the surface is heavy; an agent will spend real effort just surveying the tool list. Some consolidation of the save_reserves/provisions/assets movements or merging preview+confirm pairs is possible.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle: upload → mapping/costing → grouping → capture (all statutory sections) → declarations → readiness → generate → finalise → download, plus entity setup and consolidated statements. Minor gaps: no tool directly exposes historical version diffing beyond list_snapshots, and the management-data section (budgets, allocations, variance) feels bolted on rather than integral to the core flow.

Resources