schedule-iii

Save adjustment entry

save_adjustments

Destructive

Save one balanced adjustment journal entry (debits = credits) as an atomic whole entry. Creating a new entry proceeds immediately. Replacing an existing entry first returns an approval request; nothing changes then. Review the existing entry in the Schedule III workspace, then resend the unchanged request with the approval details to proceed. Amounts are strings in rupees.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lines`	Yes
`entry_no`	Yes
`client_id`	Yes	The entity (client) id — from list_clients.
`period_id`	Yes
`template_id`	Yes
`removal_count`	No
`removal_token`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses the atomic nature of the entry, the immediate effect of new entries, and the two-step approval process for replacements, including the fact that nothing changes until the request is resent. It also clarifies that amounts are strings in rupees, adding significant operational detail.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and every sentence adds essential detail about the workflow and constraints. There is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the description explains the high-level workflow and approval process, it omits details about how the replacement mechanism works (e.g., what 'approval details' are, how removal_count/removal_token relate) and provides no output schema. Given the tool's complexity and multiple parameters, this is a notable gap, though the core behavior is adequately covered.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema description coverage is only 14% (solely client_id), yet the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters such as period_id, template_id, entry_no, lines, removal_count, and removal_token. It adds some context (rupee strings, balanced entry) but leaves the meanings and usage of most parameters unclear.

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 saves a balanced adjustment journal entry (debits = credits) as an atomic whole, distinguishing it from sibling save tools. It also distinguishes between creating a new entry (immediate) and replacing an existing one (requires approval), making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides concrete procedural guidance on when to expect immediate execution vs. an approval workflow, and instructs the user to resend the request with approval details. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool compared to sibling save_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All schedule-iii tools Inspect

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

Need Help?