Skip to main content
Glama

schedule-iii

Review account mappings

list_account_mappings
Read-only

Review account-to-centre mapping status and deterministic suggestions for an entity. Each account carries TWO independent policies: mapping (the cost-centre policy) and profit_mapping (the profit-centre policy). Neither replaces the other. This is status-only: it returns account names, types, target names, confidence, reasons, and balance-bearing booleans, but never debit, credit, balance, or any rupee amount. Always present the rows grouped by confidence tier and target, state exact counts, flag every medium/low-confidence row, and show the completion counts: unmapped_total and unmapped_with_balance are the COST dimension (summary.scope says so), and profit_unmapped_total and profit_unmapped_with_balance are the profit dimension. Never add the two dimensions together, and never call an entity fully mapped on the cost counts alone. Do not call any count pending. Suggestions exist for the cost dimension only: suggestion_groups never describes profit work, and each row’s centre_suggestion carries dimension "cost" — never present it as an answer to a profit-centre question. A row carrying mapping_targets_inactive is confirmed onto a cost centre that has since been DEACTIVATED, and a row carrying profit_mapping_targets_inactive is the same fact on the profit dimension: those target ids are absent from the centres and profit_centres lists because they are no longer valid targets. Report summary.mappings_with_inactive_target (which counts an account with a dead target on EITHER dimension) alongside the completion counts and never describe such an account as settled. profit_centres_total says which zero a zero profit count is, and profit_mapped_total says what survives: when profit_centres_total is 0 the profit dimension is not in use and no account NEEDS a profit-centre policy — say that, never that the profit dimension is complete. If profit_mapped_total is also 0, no account has one either; if it is above 0 the dimension has been CLOSED and that many accounts still carry a saved policy pointing at a deactivated centre, which you must report rather than calling the entity profit-mapped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page number (default 1).
client_idYesThe entity (client) id — from list_clients.
page_sizeNoRows per page (default 100, max 200).
name_patternsNoReturn accounts whose code or name contains at least one of these case-insensitive patterns.
unmapped_onlyNoReturn only accounts that still need a COST-centre policy. It does not filter on the profit dimension — use profit_unmapped_only for that.
balance_bearing_onlyNoReturn only accounts that carry a balance, without returning the balance itself.
profit_unmapped_onlyNoReturn only accounts that still need a PROFIT-centre policy — the rows behind profit_unmapped_total. Combine with unmapped_only to get accounts that need both.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / profit_unmapped_only
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Return only accounts that still need a PROFIT-centre policy — the rows behind profit_unmapped_total. Combine with unmapped_only to get accounts that need both.",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / properties / unmapped_only / description
      Previous value: -"Return only accounts that still need a centre mapping."New value: +"Return only accounts that still need a COST-centre policy. It does not filter on the profit dimension — use profit_unmapped_only for that."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so safety is already declared. The description goes well beyond by disclosing the non-financial return scope, the inactive-target semantics, and the non-obvious interpretation rules for profit_centres_total/profit_mapped_total. This is useful behavioral context, though it doesn't discuss pagination behavior despite page/page_size existing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is rich but dense — long run-on sentences packed with rules, and no front-loaded summary of the core operation beyond a single opening line. Useful information is present but hard to scan; it sacrifices conciseness for completeness.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (names, types, target names, confidence, reasons, booleans) and the completion-count semantics. It covers the domain-specific edge cases (inactive targets, closed profit dimension) that an agent would otherwise misread, making it reasonably complete for a complex read tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with meaning, including the cost vs profit filter distinction. The description reinforces the dimension separation but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions, so baseline-plus is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (review) plus resource (account-to-centre mapping status) and distinguishes the two independent policy dimensions (mapping vs profit_mapping). It also clearly rules out financial amounts. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling list tools like list_cost_centres or list_profit_centres, which would sharpen selection.

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?

Gives strong situational guidance: always group by confidence tier, flag medium/low rows, show completion counts, and explicitly warns never to add the two dimensions or call a count pending. These are conditioning rules for using it correctly, though it doesn't name alternative tools for related questions.

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.

Resources