Skip to main content
Glama

schedule-iii

by com.datavrn

Read allocation target figures

get_allocation_target_figures
Read-only

MANAGEMENT data class. Read the current persisted allocation run at account × target × source × mode grain, with decimal-string allocated amounts. For step-down, filter allocation_sources=['step_down']; for profit centres, filter target_types=['profit_centre','sub_profit_centre']. Use filters before paging; the signed page_token is source-pinned, so restart at page 1 if source_changed. Target labels are cost-centre names as of the run and current profit-centre names; no owners, descriptions, source transactions, or recomputation are returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodYesManagement month in YYYY-MM.
client_idYesThe entity (client) id — from list_clients.
page_sizeNoRows per source-pinned page (default 50, max 200).
page_tokenNoSigned continuation from the prior page; restart without it if source_changed.
target_typesNoRestrict to allocation target types.
min_abs_amountNoMinimum absolute allocated amount in rupees as a decimal string, e.g. '100000'.
allocation_sourcesNoRestrict to allocation sources.
account_name_patternsNoUp to 10 case-insensitive account-name substrings; any match is retained.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavior: 'the signed page_token is source-pinned, so restart at page 1 if source_changed' and 'Target labels are cost-centre names as of the run and current profit-centre names'. This exceeds the annotation-only safety profile.

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, front-loaded with 'MANAGEMENT data class' and the grain. No filler—each sentence adds unique information: data grain, filtering patterns, pagination caveat, and label semantics/exclusions.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: grain, amount format, recommended filters, pagination behavior, and what is not returned. This gives an agent enough to invoke correctly and set expectations.

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 parameters are documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how to use enum values (allocation_sources, target_types) and the page_token behavior ('source-pinned, restart at page 1 if source_changed'). Minor gap: doesn't elaborate on min_abs_amount or account_name_patterns, but the schema covers them.

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+resource: 'Read the current persisted allocation run at account × target × source × mode grain, with decimal-string allocated amounts.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling get_allocation_account_figures by specifying the target grain and returned data format.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'For step-down, filter allocation_sources=["step_down"]; for profit centres, filter target_types=["profit_centre","sub_profit_centre"]' and 'Use filters before paging'. It also states exclusions ('no owners, descriptions, source transactions, or recomputation are returned'), making it clear when NOT to use this tool.

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