Skip to main content
Glama

schedule-iii

by com.datavrn

List pending work across entities

get_pending_work
Read-only

Answer "what's left to do?" across every entity you can see — one row per entity, with what is blocking its Schedule III statement: whether the trial balance is in, how many accounts are still ungrouped, the latest generated version, and whether it has been finalised. Pass period_label to pick a period, or omit to default to the period most of your entities have a trial balance for (not necessarily the newest — one entity uploading a future period early will not flip the board). Rows include deep links that open the Datavrn web app (a login is needed there). It also answers a second question nothing else here does: restorable_replacements lists automatic connector syncs that REPLACED an entity's data and can still be undone, soonest-closing first, each with the date its 30-day undo window shuts — after that the replaced data cannot be put back, and no message ever announces that clock running out, so raise these with your user rather than waiting to be asked (use list_replacements and preview_replacement_restore on the ids given; restorable_replacements_omitted says how many more were not listed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
period_labelNoReporting period label, e.g. '2026-03'; omit to default to the period most of your entities have a trial balance for.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the login requirement for deep links, the default-period logic ('not necessarily the newest'), the 30-day undo window and the fact that no message announces its expiry, and the ordering of restorable_replacements. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent understand side effects and risks.

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 information-dense, covering two distinct purposes and relevant nuances without fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and the parameter behavior early, then introduces the secondary replacement feature. The structure is logical, though a bit sprawling; it could be split into bullets for readability, but it remains coherent.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (per-entity row details, restorable_replacements with their fields, counted omissions) and provides necessary context about the login requirement and the undo-window risk. It also directs the agent to relevant sibling tools for follow-up actions, making it complete for correct invocation.

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?

Only one parameter, period_label, with 100% schema description coverage. The description enriches it by explaining the default behavior in more depth than the schema (e.g., that a future-period upload won't flip the board) and how to intentionally pass a label. This adds value over the schema's description, so it earns above the baseline 3.

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 question it answers ('what's left to do?') and details exactly what it returns for each entity (trial balance status, ungrouped accounts, latest version, finalised flag) plus the second distinct purpose of listing restorable replacements. This is highly specific and clearly distinguishes it from siblings, as it explicitly claims that the replacement functionality is unique ('nothing else here does').

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use the tool (to answer pending-work or replacement questions), gives parameter guidance (how to select a period or rely on the default), and suggests follow-up tools (list_replacements, preview_replacement_restore) for acting on the returned IDs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with a sibling, but the 'nothing else here does' phrase implies a unique role.

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