schedule-iii

Upload trial balance

upload_trial_balance

Stage a Trial Balance spreadsheet (xlsx or csv, max 4 MB) for an entity by INLINING its bytes as base64. This path is ONLY for programmatic callers (a script, Claude Code, an automation) that already have the raw file on disk. If a HUMAN has the file — e.g. they attached it to this chat — do NOT use this tool and do NOT base64-encode the file: call create_upload_link instead and give them the link to upload it in their browser. File size does not change this: even a small attached file goes through create_upload_link — inlining a human-supplied file is unreliable and its bytes routinely truncate. Even for a file you hold on disk, prefer create_upload_link once the file is larger than about 10 KB: base64 through a model context mutates a token often enough that the damage lands as a PLAUSIBLE trial balance, not as an obvious error. VERIFY THE HASH BEFORE YOU CONFIRM ANYTHING: this tool returns received_file_hash, the sha256 of the bytes the server actually received. Compute the sha256 of the file on your disk and compare the two. If they differ, the bytes changed in transit — do NOT call confirm_column_mapping on this session; re-send the file with create_upload_link instead. A mismatched file can still parse cleanly and still show sensible columns, so the hash is the only reliable check. Returns the upload session with detected columns and mapping SUGGESTIONS — nothing is ingested yet. Next: verify received_file_hash, then review the suggested column mapping with your user, then call confirm_column_mapping.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`format`	No	Leave unset — the assistant handles Trial Balances only; any other format is refused (use the Datavrn web app).
`source`	No	Set 'tally_file' when the file is a Tally xlsx export; omit otherwise.
`client_id`	Yes	The entity (client) id — from list_clients.
`file_name`	Yes	The file's name, e.g. 'tb-2026-03.xlsx'.
`file_base64`	Yes	The file bytes, base64-encoded.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, leaving the description to carry the behavioral burden. It does so thoroughly: explains the risk of base64 mutation and truncation, that nothing is ingested yet, and that received_file_hash is the only reliable check. It even discloses that a corrupted file can appear plausible. This far exceeds minimal expectations.

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 long but tightly packed with critical guidance. It opens with the core purpose, then flows through exclusions, size advisory, hash verification, and next steps. Every sentence adds operational value; none are filler. The structure mirrors the decision order an agent would follow.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (upload session with detected columns and mapping suggestions) and the required follow-up (verify hash, review mapping, call confirm_column_mapping). It covers all parameters, failure modes, and the alternative path. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining when to set source ('tally_file' for Tally exports), why format should be left unset, and that client_id comes from list_clients. It reinforces that file_base64 must be raw bytes encoded as base64. This extra context justifies a 4.

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?

States a specific verb (stage), resource (Trial Balance spreadsheet), format (xlsx/csv), size limit (max 4 MB), and method (inlining base64). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_upload_link, so an agent cannot mistake which tool to use.

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?

Explicitly reserves this tool for programmatic callers holding the file on disk, and outright forbids its use for human-supplied files, naming create_upload_link as the alternative. It also gives a concrete size threshold (prefer create_upload_link above ~10 KB) with a rationale, so usage conditions are unambiguous.

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?