schedule-iii

Generate Schedule III statements

generate_schedule_iii

Queue the Schedule III workbook build (returns a job_id to poll with get_job — the build runs as a background job). REFUSES when ungrouped accounts exist unless acknowledged: before acknowledging, present the ungrouped accounts to your user and obtain their explicit go-ahead; record it in acknowledge_reason and pass the exact count in acknowledge_count — an acknowledgement WITHOUT its count is always re-demanded. A multi-month statement period additionally requires acknowledge_multi_month_pnl WITH acknowledge_month_count (confirm with your user that the TBs are period movements, not cumulative). Never acknowledge anything the user has not seen. Once queued, the build usually completes in a few minutes — tell your user their statements are being prepared and poll get_job periodically; do not present the wait as a problem.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`client_id`	Yes	The entity (client) id — from list_clients.
`period_id`	Yes
`template_id`	Yes
`acknowledge_count`	No
`acknowledge_reason`	No
`acknowledge_month_count`	No
`acknowledge_unclassified`	No
`acknowledge_multi_month_pnl`	No

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the background job nature, refusal conditions, acknowledgment dependencies, and expected user communication. It fully exposes the behavioral contract of the tool.

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 long but dense, with every sentence serving a purpose. It is front-loaded with the primary action and return value, then methodically covers refusal and multi-month handling. No wasted words given the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the 8-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the async flow, user-consent requirements, and polling guidance. It does not enumerate possible errors or describe the resulting workbook contents, but it is sufficient for correct invocation and follow-up.

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 only 13%, but the description compensates by explaining the semantics of acknowledge_count/acknowledge_reason and acknowledge_multi_month_pnl/acknowledge_month_count, including their interdependencies. However, template_id and period_id remain largely unexplained beyond the schema, leaving a minor gap.

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 specific action: 'Queue the Schedule III workbook build' and notes the async job_id return, distinguishing it from sibling get_*/save_* tools. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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?

Provides explicit instructions on handling refusal conditions (present ungrouped accounts, obtain user go-ahead, record reason and count) and directs the agent to poll get_job after queueing. This is precise when-to-use and how-to-proceed guidance.

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

All schedule-iii tools Inspect

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

Need Help?