Skip to main content
Glama

schedule-iii

Record nothing to report, or not applicable

declare_capture_na
Destructive

Record that a capture section had NOTHING to report this period, DOES NOT APPLY to this entity, or that this is the entity’s FIRST YEAR (previous-year figures only). These are three different statements and are not interchangeable: "nothing this period" means the section applies but had no activity; "does not apply" means it never applies to this entity at all. This is your user’s professional assertion, recorded as authorised by them — ask which one is true, and never guess. NOT every reason is available for every section — call get_schedule3_workspace and read allowed_reason_codes on the section before you ask your user, so you never put a choice to them that Datavrn will refuse. The restrictions: Settings takes NO answer here at all (it is only answered by saving the settings); share capital and partner capital take only "nothing this period", because those sections are shown only for statement formats they apply to, so "does not apply" can never be true; and "first year" belongs only to previous-year figures. To record a REVIEW being complete (previous-year figures, disclosures) use confirm_capture_review instead; this tool cannot make that assertion. A section can only hold one active answer. If the section’s current answer is still standing, this call refuses — revoke it with revoke_capture_declaration first. If the current answer was already WITHDRAWN by later changes (Datavrn shows the section as unanswered), this call supersedes it: the old answer is marked withdrawn and stays on the record, and the response names what was withdrawn. An answer is never edited in place. Superseding or changing an answer invalidates any finalise approval you already hold — the next finalise_statement will ask you to review the current state again. 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
noteNo
client_idYesThe entity (client) id — from list_clients.
period_idYes
reason_codeYes
template_idYes
capture_kindYes
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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond: it explains superseding behavior (old answer marked withdrawn), refusal when a current answer stands, the need to revoke first, invalidation of finalise approvals, and the requirement to generate a fresh version. This adds rich contextual detail about side effects not captured in annotations, and there is no contradiction with them.

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 long but every sentence conveys essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves to restrictions, then to mutational behavior. Each paragraph handles a distinct topic without redundancy. It is dense and well-structured, though slightly lengthy; for a tool with this many nuances, the length is justified and earn-worthy.

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 has no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers all critical operational aspects: the three declaration types, allowed reason codes per section, the supersede/withdraw/revoke lifecycle, invalidation of approvals, and version generation. It also mentions what the response names (the withdrawn answer). Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke this mutation tool 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 description coverage is only 29%, so the description must compensate. It does for the most critical parameters: reason_code semantics are fully explained (three meanings and their non-interchangeability), and capture_kind restrictions are detailed (settings no answer, share capital/partner capital only 'nothing this period', 'first year' only for previous-year figures). However, it does not clarify the 'note' parameter or explain period_id/template_id beyond their obvious names. Since the core decision logic is covered, this is a strong but not perfect compensation.

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: 'Record that a capture section had NOTHING to report this period, DOES NOT APPLY to this entity, or that this is the entity’s FIRST YEAR'. It clearly distinguishes the three distinct statements and explicitly differentiates from the sibling confirm_capture_review by stating that tool makes a different assertion. The purpose is unambiguous and separate from other tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it tells the agent to call get_schedule3_workspace and read allowed_reason_codes before asking the user, so invalid choices are never offered. It also names an alternative (confirm_capture_review) for review completion, and provides per-section restrictions (settings takes no answer, share capital/partner capital only 'nothing this period'). This is thorough, actionable usage guidance.

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.

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