Skip to main content
Glama
ComplyEaze

ComplyEaze Bridge: TallyPrime MCP server for Claude Desktop

Official

egress_log

Read-only

Show recent ComplyEaze Bridge tool-call receipts from its local log—tool, time, company, counts, fingerprints, no book figures—so users and reviewers can see which calls ran, on which company, when.

Instructions

Everything the assistant reads from Tally through ComplyEaze Bridge in this chat, amounts included, is sent to the AI provider; redaction can only shorten party and ledger names and bank account numbers or drop narrations, and does not hide amounts, company names, PAN, GSTIN, IFSC, MSME or Udyam registration numbers, contact details or references, or the last four digits of a bank statement's account number (account_last4); under mask_parties a name written inside a narration or reference stays as it is. Never tell the user that no data has left their computer. Shows the receipts ComplyEaze Bridge keeps of its own tool calls, read from its local log file on this computer: tool, time, company, counts and fingerprints, no figures or book content (bounded to the most recent receipts). It does not show what the AI provider received. Use it when the user asks what ComplyEaze Bridge has done, or to show a reviewer which calls ran, on which company and when. Reading the log changes nothing in it; this call's own receipt lines are added after the read, like every call's. 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
limitNoHow many of the most recent receipt lines to return (each completed call writes two): default 20, at most 256 (or the configured row limit, BRIDGE_AGENT_MAX_ROWS, if lower, which can cap the default too), and fewer when the newest receipt lines do not fit in the log read's size bound.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"How many of the most recent receipt lines to return (each completed call writes two): default 20, at most 256 (or the configured row limit, BRIDGE_AGENT_MAX_ROWS, if lower, which can cap the default too), and fewer when the newest receipt lines do not fit in the log read's size bound."
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare read-only and non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: reading alters nothing, but "this call's own receipt lines are added after the read," each call appends metadata-only lines, and it "writes nothing to Tally." It also discloses log contents and bounds ("bounded to the most recent receipts"). This is unusually rich behavioral context for a read tool.

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 description is a run-on of multiple long clauses, and the core purpose is not front-loaded — the privacy mandate comes first, then scope, then usage, then behavior. There is also redundancy: the metadata-only receipt lines and "writes nothing to Tally" point is stated twice. Content is mostly load-bearing, but the delivery is not tight.

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 no output schema, the description must convey return shape, which it does (tool, time, company, counts, fingerprints; no figures or book content). It covers scope, exclusions, triggers and side effects. The only gap is that it never mentions the `limit` truncation behavior in prose, but the schema handles that.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including defaults, caps and truncation behavior. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource: "Shows the receipts ComplyEaze Bridge keeps of its own tool calls, read from its local log file on this computer: tool, time, company, counts and fingerprints." That clearly separates it from the accounting siblings (balance_sheet, vouchers, etc.). However, the actual purpose statement is buried behind a long privacy disclosure, so the agent must read past several sentences before learning what the tool is.

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?

Explicit trigger: "Use it when the user asks what ComplyEaze Bridge has done, or to show a reviewer which calls ran, on which company and when." It also draws a scope boundary with "It does not show what the AI provider received," which prevents misuse as a data-exfiltration audit. No named alternative sibling is offered, but the use case is concrete.

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