Skip to main content
Glama

schedule-iii

by com.datavrn

Review reporting-line mappings

list_reporting_lines
Read-only

Review reporting-line classification status and deterministic suggestions for an entity and reporting period. This is status-only: it returns names, line labels, confidence, reasons, and balance-bearing booleans, but never debit, credit, balance, or any rupee amount. Present suggestions grouped by confidence tier and target, with exact counts and both unmapped_total and unmapped_with_balance; do not call either count pending.

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).
period_idYesThe reporting period id from list_periods.
name_patternsNoReturn accounts whose code or name contains at least one of these case-insensitive patterns.
unmapped_onlyNoReturn only accounts without a confirmed reporting line.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns names, line labels, confidence, reasons, and balance-bearing booleans but never debit, credit, balance, or any rupee amount. It also clarifies the output is deterministic and instructs not to label the two counts as pending, giving meaningful behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose and safety scope stated in the first two sentences. The final sentence adds useful presentation guidance but is somewhat opaque, especially the do not call either count pending clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the key returned fields and count semantics. It does not fully specify the response structure or pagination behavior, but the schema already covers paging parameters and the description provides enough for a reasonable agent to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 description coverage is 100 percent, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds only the general notion of entity and reporting period, which does not materially improve on the schema, justifying the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb, Review, and identifies the exact resource: reporting-line classification status and deterministic suggestions for an entity and reporting period. The explicit status-only framing clearly distinguishes it from sibling confirmation and mutation 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 read-only, status-only description makes the intended review use case clear and implicitly separates it from confirm_reporting_lines and other mutation tools. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a perfect usage-guidance score.

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