Skip to main content
Glama

schedule-iii

Read statement notes

get_statement_notes
Read-only

Read the line-by-line breakdown of a generated statement's notes — every line's current and prior-year amount, and the note total. Pass note_numbers (from get_statement_figures' note_index) to fetch specific notes, or omit for all. Use this to answer "what's in Other Expenses?" or "what makes up trade receivables?". Each line has a kind: 'component' (an additive line), 'subtotal' (a presentational group subtotal — do NOT add it into the total, or you double-count), or 'header'. Fixed-asset / intangible notes carry a block per class with gross_block, accumulated depreciation, and net (the additions/deletions movement schedule itself lives in the workbook). If the full set is too large it returns too_large:true with a note_index — fetch note_numbers in small batches. A single very large note (e.g. a PPE schedule or an ageing note) is returned in explicitly-flagged line pages: each page carries the authoritative note total, lines_page, lines_total, and has_more_lines — keep fetching lines_page until has_more_lines is false; never treat one page's lines as the whole note. Amounts are decimal strings in rupees. Figures are Datavrn's deterministic engine output; interpretation is your assistant's.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionNoA specific statement version; omit for the latest.
client_idYesThe entity (client) id — from list_clients.
period_idYesThe reporting period id — from list_periods.
lines_pageNoFor a single very large note returned in line pages: the 1-based line page to fetch (fetch exactly one note; keep going until has_more_lines is false).
template_idYesThe statement template id (e.g. 'schedule3_v1' Division I; see list_snapshots/workspace).
note_numbersNoSpecific note numbers to fetch (from note_index); omit for all notes.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses line kinds ('component', 'subtotal', 'header'), warns against double-counting subtotals, explains fixed-asset block structure, details pagination (lines_page, has_more_lines), the too_large flag, decimal strings, and deterministic engine output. This is extensive behavioral context far exceeding annotation value.

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 dense yet front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers line kinds, blocks, pagination, and data format. Every sentence delivers distinct, actionable information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and apply.

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 compensates by explaining response features (line kinds, totals, pagination fields, too_large flag) and edge cases like double-counting subtotals and single large notes. It fully equips an agent to safely interpret and consume the tool's output across normal and paginated scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds operational meaning: note_numbers can be omitted for all notes, lines_page should be fetched until has_more_lines is false, and how note_index from get_statement_figures feeds into note_numbers. This deeply enriches the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 with a specific verb and resource: "Read the line-by-line breakdown of a generated statement's notes," and clearly states what is included (current/prior-year amounts, note total). It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing get_statement_figures' note_index and the note-level scope.

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?

Explicit use cases are given ("Use this to answer 'what's in Other Expenses?'...") and it directs users to get_statement_figures for note_numbers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for higher-level summaries, missing the 'when-not/alternatives' part of the 5-level criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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