schedule-iii

Read spreading reconciliation

get_spreading_reconciliation

Read-only

MANAGEMENT data class. Read the persisted books-to-MIS spreading reconciliation, not a new allocation run. Accounts view gives account-grain books plus adjustments equals MIS; adjustments view requires one account and pages its rule adjustments. Money is decimal-string rupees. Whole-run summary figures never change with account filters. The signed page_token is source-pinned, so restart at page 1 if source_changed. Raw warning context is withheld; known_stale and not_assessed are disclosure states, not freshness claims.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`view`	No	accounts (default) or adjustments; adjustments requires account_id.
`period`	Yes	Management month in YYYY-MM.
`client_id`	Yes	The entity (client) id — from list_clients.
`page_size`	No	Rows per source-pinned page: accounts default 25/max 100; adjustments default 50/max 200.
`account_id`	No	Required for adjustments view; an account in this entity and run.
`page_token`	No	Signed continuation from the prior page; restart without it if source_changed.
`account_name_patterns`	No	Up to 10 case-insensitive account-name substrings; any match is retained.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds extensive behavioral detail: view-specific output semantics, decimal-string rupees, invariant summary figures, source-pinned page_token behavior, and the meaning of warning states. This significantly aids the agent in interpreting results and pagination.

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 concise yet information-dense, with every sentence contributing unique value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a logical flow (purpose, views, data format, pagination, warnings). No redundancy or 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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description covers critical contextual aspects: view contents, pagination semantics, data type, summary behavior, and disclosure states. This is a complex tool with 7 parameters, and the description provides enough context for the agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly reinforces schema information (e.g., adjust view requires account_id, page_token source pinning) and adds output-related context rather than new parameter depth. It does not materially elevate parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool reads the persisted books-to-MIS spreading reconciliation, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from a new allocation run and explains the two view modes, making its purpose unambiguous relative to sibling tools.

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 provides clear context: it is for reading the persisted reconciliation, not a new allocation run, and explains when to use accounts vs adjustments view. It lacks explicit alternatives by name, but the exclusion and view guidance are sufficient.

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?