finance

Scenarios: Commit a scenario to real accounts

commit_scenario

    Commit a scenario — create its add items as real accounts.

    Turns the scenario's add-debt / add-asset changes into real Account
    rows and archives any sell/remove targets. Use ONLY after confirming
    with the user that they've actually gone through with the change and
    the numbers are still correct. Enforces the account limit.

    Args:
        scenario_id: The scenario to commit.

    Returns:
        {"success": True, "created_accounts": [{id, name}], "scenario": {...}}
        or {"error": "..."}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "scenario_id": "<scenario_id>"
    },
    "name": "commit_scenario"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scenario_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete side effects: it creates real Account rows, archives sell/remove targets, and enforces the account limit. This is particularly valuable given that the annotations only provide negative hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.) and no safety profile.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a detailed behavior sentence, an explicit precondition, and clearly separated Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately covers the return shape. It also explains the core side effects, the user-confirmation prerequisite, and the account-limit constraint. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate, but the Args section only restates the parameter as 'The scenario to commit,' which is nearly tautological. It does not explain how to obtain or validate a scenario_id, nor what constitutes a valid scenario for this operation.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Commit a scenario') and explains the concrete outcome: creating add-debt/add-asset items as real Account rows and archiving sell/remove targets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_scenario, update_scenario, or delete_scenario without ambiguity.

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 explicitly says to use this tool ONLY after confirming with the user that the change actually happened and the numbers are still correct. This is a clear conditional usage guideline, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use the tool.

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

All finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?