Skip to main content
Glama

Taokeh MCP server

Cash position

cash_position
Read-only

How much cash you have right now: every bank account and cash pocket with its current GL balance, plus a grand total. total is LIQUID money only — physical cash + bank accounts + the payment-gateway clearing float — and accounts lists exactly those accounts. Money the OWNER has advanced to the business (the Shareholder Loan) is returned SEPARATELY as ownerFunding: it is a LIABILITY the business owes back, not cash it holds, so it is never inside total and must never be added to it or described as cash. CREDIT CARDS are returned separately for exactly the same reason, as cards (one entry per card, with cardsOwing for the total): what sits on a card is money OWED to the issuer, not cash the business holds, so it is never inside total — report it as card debt beside the cash figure, never as cash and never as a negative bank balance. Each card carries its own direction ('owed_to_issuer', or 'in_credit' when the card is overpaid) — follow it rather than assuming a debt. Balances are MYR-booked (the books are kept in ringgit); a foreign bank account shows its currency label for context, but the balance figure is still the MYR-booked GL balance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining key behavioral details: ownerFunding is a liability excluded from total, credit cards are returned separately as card debt, each card has a direction, and balances are MYR-booked. This is rich contextual transparency for an agent.

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 longer than average but almost every sentence adds an important semantic distinction. It is front-loaded with the core answer and then explains exclusions. Minor redundancy exists around 'accounts' and total components, but the structure is still effective.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining the response shape and semantics. It covers the total, account breakdown, shareholder loan, credit cards, direction fields, and currency treatment—making the tool fully understandable to an agent.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. The description instead focuses on output meaning, which is appropriate. No parameter-level explanation is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly defines the tool as reporting current cash across bank accounts and cash pockets, including a grand total. It is specific about what the tool computes, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like cash_forecast.

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 establishes a clear context: the tool answers 'How much cash you have right now.' It also provides strong exclusions about what should never be treated as cash, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as cash_forecast.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources