Well

Get accounting settings

well_get_accounting_settings

Read-only

Read the workspace's accounting settings and their provenance WITHOUT showing the user anything: country of incorporation, incorporation date, tax ID, fiscal year start, base currency, and accounting framework. Each field carries its value, where the value came from, and the stored "Suggested" fills. This draws nothing on the user's screen and asks for no confirmation.

Use it ONLY for a silent CHECK the model acts on itself: the close-books step deciding whether the fiscal year start and the base currency are already present and trusted before it moves on, a step that needs the current framework or start month to compute something. Read the fields and act in the same turn — there is no card and no click to wait on.

⚠️ To have the USER review or CONFIRM the settings, call well_show_accounting_settings INSTEAD — that one draws the card the user completes and confirms. This tool cannot draw one, so a confirm step run here leaves the user with nothing to act on.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workspace_id`	No	Target workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several: this read reports one workspace's own figures and will not choose which.
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`settings`	No
`next_step`	No	What to do with the card this result renders. Added by the dispatcher when the card asks for a click.
`suggestions`	No
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
`resolved_workspace`	No	The workspace that answered, when the caller named none and the token authorizes several.
`conversation_id_note`	No	Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
`conversation_id_source`	No	Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id_note

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id_source

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.",
+  "enum": [
+    "host_meta",
+    "argument",
+    "minted"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it draws nothing on screen, asks for no confirmation, reports provenance and stored 'Suggested' fills, and cannot draw a confirmation card. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 somewhat long but every sentence carries useful decision-relevant information. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the warning about the confirmation-flow alternative is clearly separated. Minor redundancy between 'WITHOUT showing the user anything' and 'draws nothing on the user's screen' keeps it from a 5.

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?

For a read-only settings tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned conceptually, explicitly clarifies the silent/no-UI behavior, gives conditional usage guidance, and distinguishes it from the sibling show tool. The output schema covers return-value details, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents `workspace_id` and `conversation_id` thoroughly. The description does not add significant parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which merits the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('the workspace's accounting settings and their provenance'), and importantly differentiates this from the sibling `well_show_accounting_settings` by emphasizing it does not draw anything on the user's screen. An agent can unambiguously identify what this tool does and what it does not do.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: use this tool only for a silent CHECK the model acts on itself, and read fields and act in the same turn. It names the alternative `well_show_accounting_settings` for when the user must review or confirm, and explains why using this tool for a confirm step would leave the user with nothing to act on.

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

All Well 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?