Skip to main content
Glama

schedule-iii

by com.datavrn

Show setup status and the next step

get_setup_status
Read-only

Answer "how do I get started?", "what do I do next?", or help a user who seems lost setting up. Returns where they are in the journey from an empty organization to a finished Schedule III statement, and the ONE next step to take. Call it WITHOUT client_id first (the organization view): it lists the entities this credential can see, or — if there are none — the step to create the first one. Then call it again WITH one entity’s client_id for that entity’s full step-by-step path (upload trial balance → confirm groupings → capture figures → generate → download). Each step has a status (done / next / todo / blocked / web_only) and either the exact tool to call or a web-app link. NARRATE ONE STEP AT A TIME — walk the user through the single next step; do not dump the whole list unprompted. Steps marked web_only are done in the Datavrn web app and need a login — never claim you can do them yourself. This tool reports STATUS only (counts, names, what is done) — it never returns a figure or balance; read those with get_statement_figures once a statement is generated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_idNoAn entity id (from list_clients or the organization view) for that entity’s full path; omit for the organization-level overview and, on an empty org, the create-entity step.

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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it only reports status (counts, names, what is done), never returns a figure or balance, and explains that web_only steps require login. It also discloses that on an empty organization it returns the create-first-entity step. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 every sentence carries actionable information: two calling modes, step statuses, narration instruction, web_only caveat, and scope limitation. It is front-loaded with the use case. The length is justified by the tool's complexity; there is zero fluff.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return semantics: org vs entity views, step statuses, tool links, and the narration rule. It even cross-references get_statement_figures to clarify what the tool does NOT return. Given the tool's dual-mode nature, this is complete and leaves no critical ambiguity.

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?

The schema already covers the single parameter well (omit for org view, include for entity path). The description reinforces this and adds the step sequence and the 'create entity' fallback, deepening the agent's understanding of how the parameter affects output. Since schema coverage is 100%, this extra context raises it above a 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 opens by naming the exact user questions ('how do I get started?', 'what do I do next?') and states it 'Returns where they are in the journey... and the ONE next step to take.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose (reporting setup status) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pending_work or generate_schedule_iii.

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 (user lost during setup) and a precise two-call protocol: first without client_id, then with one entity's client_id. It also instructs the agent to narrate one step at a time, warns against claiming to perform web_only steps, and points to get_statement_figures for figures. This is exemplary usage 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 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