schedule-iii

Get Schedule III workspace

get_schedule3_workspace

Read-only

THE state tool: grouping progress, every required capture answer, generated/finalised versions, finalisation blockers, and bounded per-version control summaries. Report generation never marks capture complete. Exception output is rule/severity/count only — no account names or amounts. Call this to know what is left before finalising.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`client_id`	Yes	The entity (client) id — from list_clients.
`period_id`	Yes	The reporting period id — from list_periods.
`template_id`	Yes	The statement template id (e.g. 'schedule3_v1' Division I; see list_snapshots/workspace).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds non-obvious behavioral details: it will never mark capture complete, and exception output is deliberately limited to rule/severity/count without sensitive account data. This sets accurate expectations for side effects and data scope.

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?

Three dense, informative sentences with no filler; each clause earns its place. Slightly heavy on domain jargon like 'bounded per-version control summaries' may impede quick comprehension, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 its read-only nature and rich annotations, the description covers tool outputs, non-side-effect behavior, and output limitations. It lacks only a full return structure, which is acceptable without an output schema.

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 100%, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents each parameter's meaning.

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 positions this as the central state tool for Schedule III, enumerating specific components (grouping progress, capture answers, versions, blockers, control summaries). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_statement_figures or get_setup_status by framing it as the holistic workspace view.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this to know what is left before finalising', providing a clear when-to-use scenario. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for selecting this over other read-only 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 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?