Skip to main content
Glama

schedule-iii

by com.datavrn

Ingest upload into the books

ingest_upload
Destructive

Commit a validated upload into the entity’s books. This is a TWO-CALL approval: if the upload has any warnings, or would permanently delete existing trial-balance rows for a period it covers, the first call writes NOTHING and refuses with every warning, the exact record counts, and a short-lived removal_token. Show your user every warning and both counts, get their explicit go-ahead, then resend the SAME call adding removal_token and removal_count exactly as returned. acknowledge_warnings is IGNORED on this connection — the token is the only acknowledgment, so sending it changes nothing. A clean, additive ingest needs no token and succeeds on the first call. Returns the ingestion outcome including any notices.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
upload_idYesThe upload session id returned by upload_trial_balance.
removal_countNoThe exact removal count returned by the removal preview.
removal_tokenNoOnly include the short-lived token returned by the removal preview for this exact upload.
confirm_mergesNo
acknowledge_warningsNo
acknowledged_state_digestNoBrowser/REST only, and IGNORED on the agent connection exactly as acknowledge_warnings is: the destroy_state_digest returned by the confirm-mapping step, resent unchanged so the server can prove the acknowledgment was given against the data that is still there. On this connection the removal_token already pins the rows at risk, so sending this changes nothing.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes further by describing the exact destructive scenario (permanently deleting trial-balance rows), the refusal-on-first-call behavior, and the short-lived token as the only acknowledgment. It also discloses that two parameters are ignored on this connection, which is critical for correct invocation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 every sentence carries essential operational detail: purpose, conditional flow, token handling, ignored params, and return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slight verbosity, but justified given the two-call complexity; no redundancy.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema and 6 parameters, the description covers the approval flow, the token lifecycle, the ignored fields, and the return value (ingestion outcome with notices). It assumes a prior 'validated upload' step, which is reasonable given sibling upload_trial_balance. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 67%, so the description is expected to fill gaps. It explicitly explains removal_token and removal_count (exact counts, token short-lived, resend unchanged) and states acknowledged_state_digest is ignored. However, confirm_merges is not mentioned at all, and acknowledge_warnings only gets a dismissal. Still, the description adds substantial meaning for the most security-sensitive parameters, going 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Commit a validated upload into the entity’s books.' It clearly differentiates this from upload_trial_balance (which creates the upload) and other confirm_* siblings by framing it as the final commit step. The two-call approval mechanism is prominent, making the tool's unique role unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when a token is required (warnings or destructive over-write) vs when a simple additive ingest suffices. It instructs the agent to show warnings and counts, get explicit go-ahead, and resend with the token. It also clarifies that acknowledge_warnings is ignored, preventing misuse. This is as explicit as usage guidance gets.

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