Skip to main content
Glama

schedule-iii

Save partner or owner capital schedule

save_partner_capital
Destructive

Save the partner or owner capital schedule for an LLP or other non-corporate entity — Note 3a (capital account) or Note 3b (current account), one section per call. Send the COMPLETE schedule for the section you name: anyone you leave out is removed, and a renamed partner reads as one removal plus one addition. If your request would remove anyone, would change the figures of a partner who stays — including their profit-sharing ratio — or would repeat a person’s name that is not already repeated on file, this returns an approval request first and changes NOTHING; tell your user exactly what would change and get their go-ahead before resending with the approval. Two rows with the same person name are both kept: Datavrn never merges them, because two partners may genuinely share a name. A repeated name is therefore saved as a separate row each time it appears, and every one of those rows adds to that person’s balance on the note, so check with your user that there really are that many people before you send a schedule that repeats a name. Adding a partner with a new, different name needs no approval. share_pct is the profit-sharing ratio stated in the LLP or partnership agreement at the reporting date. A ratio that changed part-way through the year cannot be represented here, and a partner who joined or left mid-year cannot be dated — record the position at the reporting date and tell your user the note cannot explain a mid-year change. These figures come from the agreement; Datavrn does not verify them. Datavrn warns about ratios that do not total 100% only when at least TWO capital-account rows carry a ratio, so a partly-filled schedule gets no warning at all — check the total yourself with get_partner_capital. This is your user’s data about named people, recorded as authorised by them. After a successful save, read the section back with get_partner_capital and show your user the new closing balances — this replaces the whole section, and a schedule they cannot see afterwards is a schedule they cannot check. Generate a fresh version after your last capture change — finalisation checks the version’s frozen capture state, not today’s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYes
client_idYesThe entity (client) id — from list_clients.
period_idYes
template_idYes
account_kindYes
on_behalf_ofNoThe email address your user signs in to Datavrn with. This records who authorised the change alongside the connection that made it. REQUIRED on an API-key connection — ask your user for it, do not guess. On an OAuth connection leave it out: the change is recorded as authorised by the member who connected; if you do supply it, it must be that member.
removal_countNo
removal_tokenNo

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses the full-replacement semantics ('anyone you leave out is removed'), the approval-request behavior that changes nothing, duplicate-name handling (kept as separate rows), and the fact that Datavrn does not verify figures. It also warns about the ratio-total warning limitation. All of this is essential behavioral context not present in 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 nearly every sentence adds unique critical information, from approval flow to version finalisation. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then expands into necessary warnings, though a few redundant phrases (e.g., 'this is your user's data...') could be trimmed.

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 tool's destructive nature, 8 parameters, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the overall process, success behavior, edge cases (mid-year changes, duplicate names), approval requirements, and post-save verification steps, leaving almost no operational ambiguity.

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 only 25%, but the description compensates by explaining share_pct's meaning and the behavior of rows (complete schedule, duplicates, removals). It maps account_kind to Notes 3a/3b. However, it does not explicitly describe fields like opening/interest or the removal_token/count, leaving some parameters underspecified.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Save the partner or owner capital schedule for an LLP or other non-corporate entity — Note 3a (capital account) or Note 3b (current account).' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_partner_capital and save_share_capital by specifying the entity type and the two account kinds.

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?

It clearly states the tool is for one section per call and emphasizes sending the complete schedule. It instructs the agent to verify totals and read back with get_partner_capital, and to generate a fresh version after capture changes, giving concrete guidance on when to use this tool in conjunction with others.

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.

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