Skip to main content
Glama
ComplyEaze

ComplyEaze Bridge: TallyPrime MCP server for Claude Desktop

Official

month_register

Read-only

Fetch Tally's month-wise Sales or Purchase Register for whole months, returning one row per month with Tally's own debit, credit, and closing columns as printed.

Instructions

Return Tally's own month-wise Sales Register or Purchase Register for whole months, read by its report name: one row per month with Tally's debit, credit and closing columns exactly as Tally printed them. The rows are not tied to the vouchers, to the trial balance or to the sales_register and purchase_register tools; on the one synthetic book read, the Sales Register's credit was the month's sales invoices, tax included, and its closing a running total printed only for the months with sales, and the Purchase Register's debit was the month's purchases as a negative amount. The period must be whole months, at most twelve, and must not start before the book does. An empty amount is not zero. The result's limitations say what has not been measured. 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
toYesThe last day of the last month, which must be a month's last day, so that from to to holds at most twelve whole months (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD).
fromYesThe first day of the first month, which must be the 1st (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD).
kindYessales (Tally's Sales Register) or purchase (Tally's Purchase Register).
company_guidYesThe company's company_guid, as list_companies returns it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.4

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, it discloses that each call appends metadata-only receipt lines to a local log and writes nothing to Tally (explaining the non-idempotent hint), warns that an empty amount is not zero, and notes the result carries limitations. This is rich behavioral context the annotations alone do not convey.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the body is a dense run-on of long sentences mixing output semantics, edge cases, and logging behavior. Most content earns its place, yet the structure is hard to parse and could be tightened into clearer discrete statements.

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 usefully explains the return shape (one row per month with debit, credit, and closing columns exactly as Tally printed them), the synthetic-book caveats, the limitations note, and the side-effect logging. It is nearly complete for a read tool, though the synthetic-book semantics are complex and could be framed more cleanly.

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 kind, from, to, and company_guid, including the whole-month and 12-month constraints. The description largely restates those constraints and describes output shape rather than adding new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Return) and resource (Tally's own month-wise Sales Register or Purchase Register, read by its report name), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying the rows are not tied to the vouchers, trial balance, or the sales_register and purchase_register tools. An agent can tell this apart from the sibling register tools without opening a schema.

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 concrete usage constraints (whole months only, at most twelve, must not start before the book does) and implicitly rules out the sibling register tools. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of sales_register/purchase_register when...' routing statement, so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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