Skip to main content
Glama

Beancount.io

by io.beancount
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create Ledger Files

createLedgerFiles

Create new text files in one atomic commit; each file gets plain UTF-8 content. Each new/resulting file is limited to 1 MiB of UTF-8 bytes, including dry runs. dry_run previews without committing: the same refusal as the commit, plus a unified diff per touched file and bean-check's verdict over the projected contents.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesYes
dryRunNoAlias of dry_run, as REST and GraphQL spell it.
ledgerNoTarget ledger as owner/name. Required for an unpinned credential; defaults to the credential's ledger restriction.
dry_runNoIf true, validates all operations and returns a preview without committing.
messageNoAlias of description, as REST and GraphQL spell it.
descriptionNoOne sentence describing what these changes do. Shown to the user for approval and used verbatim as the commit message.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
errorNo
resultNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / dryRun
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias of dry_run, as REST and GraphQL spell it.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / dry_run / default
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / message
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias of description, as REST and GraphQL spell it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "description",
-  "files"
-]New value: +[
+  "files"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past annotations by disclosing all-or-nothing semantics ('one atomic commit'), a hard 1 MiB UTF-8 byte cap applied to both commits and dry runs, and that a dry run performs the identical refusal path while returning a unified diff per touched file plus a bean-check verdict. The annotations only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent; the description supplies the real behavioral contract.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and atomicity, with the limit and dry-run behavior following in priority order. Every clause carries information, though phrases like 'the same refusal as the commit' are slightly awkward and could be tightened.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, yet it still characterizes dry-run output, which is the risky path agents will wonder about. It leaves open whether existing paths are overwritten or rejected and any approval/credential requirements tied to `description`, but the core write contract is complete.

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 83%, so most parameters are already documented, but the description still adds meaning the schema lacks: dry_run's return shape (diff per file, bean-check verdict, same refusals as commit) and the byte limit that governs the content field. It does not clarify the dryRun/dry_run and message/description aliases or the ledger resolution rule, so it stops short of full coverage.

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 and resource ('Create new text files') plus the transactional scope ('one atomic commit') and encoding ('plain UTF-8'), which separates it from updateLedgerFiles, appendLedgerText, and renameLedgerFile. An agent can tell this is a create-only, multi-file write without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The dry_run sentence implies the preview-then-commit pattern, which is useful context for choosing this tool's mode. However, it never says when to use this versus updateLedgerFiles, appendLedgerText, or renameLedgerFile, nor any exclusion such as 'do not use for existing paths' beyond the word 'new'. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

All Beancount.io toolsInspect
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