Skip to main content
Glama

schedule-iii

by com.datavrn

List grouping suggestions

list_grouping_suggestions
Read-only

List ungrouped accounts with DETERMINISTIC grouping suggestions (curated rules + name/group-path matching — no AI is involved; Datavrn never applies a suggestion itself). Paginated. Each row carries a reason and a confidence tier: present them to your user GROUPED BY CONFIDENCE, and call out low-confidence and balance-bearing rows for individual attention — a single blanket approval is not a review of the low-confidence tail. Confirm only what your user approves via confirm_groupings. Returns a summary (counts by confidence tier) plus one page of suggestion rows — fetch tier by tier with the confidence filter instead of everything at once; pass include='confirmed' to see already-confirmed groupings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size (default 50, max 200).
offsetNoRows to skip (default 0).
includeNoWhich rows to page: 'suggestions' (default), 'confirmed' (already-grouped accounts), or 'both'.
client_idYesThe entity (client) id — from list_clients.
period_idYesThe reporting period id — from list_periods.
confidenceNoKeep only suggestion rows in this confidence tier ('none' = accounts with no deterministic suggestion). Filters rows only — the summary counts stay over the whole population.
has_balanceNoKeep only suggestion rows whose account carries a live balance (true) or not (false).
template_idYesThe statement template id (e.g. 'schedule3_v1' Division I; see list_snapshots/workspace).

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context: deterministic rules (no AI), Datavrn never auto-applies, pagination behavior, summary counts remain whole-population when filtering, and return format. 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 dense and front-loaded, but somewhat long (~170 words). Every sentence adds value, though some phrases like 'a single blanket approval is not a review...' could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Given the complexity (8 params, pagination, confidence tiers, confirmation workflow) and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains return format, pagination, filtering strategy, and the confirmation flow, offering sufficient context for correct tool invocation.

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 already covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds usage semantics for confidence (fetch tier by tier), include ('confirmed' shows already-grouped), and has_balance (call out balance-bearing rows), which goes beyond schema 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 clearly states the tool lists ungrouped accounts with deterministic grouping suggestions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling confirm_groupings tool by explicitly noting that suggestions are never auto-applied.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: present suggestions grouped by confidence, call out low-confidence rows, confirm only via confirm_groupings, and fetch tier by tier instead of all at once. It also tells when to use include='confirmed'.

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