Skip to main content
Glama

HelloBooks AI Agents MCP Server

by io.github.HelloBooksAIAgents

compliance_deadlines

When statutory returns and payroll filings are due, per country. Covers IN (GSTR-1/3B/9/9C, CMP-08, Form 24Q, Form 16, PF ECR, ESI), AU (BAS, STP, Super Guarantee), GB (VAT MTD, RTI, Self Assessment), US (1099-NEC/MISC, W-2, Form 941/940), CA (T4, GST/HST). Optional country, frequency, and form filters. Note: dates rotate annually — every response carries a disclaimer with the per-deadline source URL for authority confirmation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formNoSubstring match against form name, e.g. "GSTR-3B", "BAS", "1099", "T4". Case-insensitive.
countryNoISO country code. Filters to one country (IN, AU, GB, US, CA covered today).
frequencyNoFiling cadence. Useful for "what are my monthly returns" style queries.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that dates rotate annually and that each response includes a disclaimer with a source URL for authority confirmation. This is good transparency about the dynamic nature of the data.

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 concise, covering purpose, coverage, filters, and a key behavioral note in four sentences. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and a behavioral note. It could be improved by briefly describing the output format (e.g., list of deadlines with dates and source URLs).

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%; each parameter is well-described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing example forms and stating filters are optional. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists deadlines for statutory returns and payroll filings per country, covering specific forms for IN, AU, GB, US, CA. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lookup_tax_rate' or 'compliance_capabilities'.

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 description explains optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is clear enough for an AI to infer, but lacks direct guidance on exclusions or when not to use.

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

All HelloBooks AI Agents MCP Server toolsInspect
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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct, each targeting a specific report type (balance sheet, P&L, trial balance) or functionality. Some overlap exists between QBO and Xero variants, but descriptions clearly differentiate them. Overall, an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_balance_sheet, list_articles). A few exceptions like free_tier_eligibility and how_munimji_helps break the pattern but are still readable and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 29 tools, the count is on the higher side but justified by the domain's breadth (financial analysis, compliance, migration, pricing, etc.). Some reduction through parameterization (e.g., merging QBO/Xero variants) would improve scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key areas: financial statement analysis, compliance, migration estimation, feature/pricing info, and partner programs. Missing are direct data manipulation tools (e.g., create/edit journal entries), which may be intentional for a read-only analysis agent.

Resources