Skip to main content
Glama
ComplyEaze

ComplyEaze Bridge: TallyPrime MCP server for Claude Desktop

Official

company_features

Read-only

Read a company's Tally settings—cost centres, GST, batch-wise stock, and currency symbol—by company_guid to verify configuration; returns yes, no, or not_reported, not book data.

Instructions

Return three settings Tally's company record holds today for one company: cost centres, GST and batch-wise stock (each yes, no or not_reported), and the company's currency symbol. They say nothing about what the books contain or what the settings were during a year: a cost-centre allocation can be stored while the setting reads No. Each of the three settings has been compared with Tally's own F11 screen, on three synthetic books and not on this company; a setting changed inside a sitting has not been measured. Each setting says what it rests on. The currency is the symbol Tally holds (for example the rupee sign), not an ISO code, and it does not say whether foreign currencies are used. A setting Tally did not send is not_reported, never no. Tally's other feature flags are fetched in the same request and are not returned. Nothing this tool returns changes what another tool reads or refuses. Take company_guid from list_companies. This reads the company record and the book extent twice and returns no ledger, voucher, amount or narration. A company in Education mode is refused. Never present a setting as a fact about the books or about a past period. Each call appends metadata-only receipt lines (tool, company, counts, request and response fingerprints; no book content) to ComplyEaze Bridge's local log on this computer; it writes nothing to Tally.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_guidYesThe company's company_guid, as list_companies returns it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.3

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Far beyond the annotations, it discloses that the settings are not statements about book content or a past period, that each setting reports what it rests on, that it was validated against F11 on three synthetic books and not this company, that an unset value is 'not_reported' never 'no', that it reads the record twice, that Education-mode companies are refused, and that each call appends metadata-only receipt lines to a local log while writing nothing to Tally. These details are consistent with the readOnly/idempotent=false annotations and explain the non-idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and the essential caveats (not_reported semantics, no book content, refusal) are front-loaded, but the single dense paragraph is long and mixes behavioral, validity, logging, and epistemic caveats without visual structure. Every sentence carries some signal, yet the volume makes it harder to scan than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully characterizes the return values (three yes/no/not_reported settings plus a currency symbol, not an ISO code), what is deliberately not returned, refusal conditions, side effects, and epistemic limits. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the parameter's meaning. The description only restates the source ('Take company_guid from list_companies') and adds a validity constraint (Education-mode companies are refused); it adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opening sentence states a specific verb (return) and precisely scopes the resource: three named company-record settings (cost centres, GST, batch-wise stock) plus a currency symbol, with the allowed values. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like trial_balance or vouchers by stating it returns no ledger, voucher, amount or narration.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('Take company_guid from list_companies') and a when-not rule (a company in Education mode is refused; do not present settings as facts about books or past periods). It does not, however, name a specific alternative tool for agents who actually want book contents or period settings, leaving that routing to inference.

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