Skip to main content
Glama
ComplyEaze Bridge: TallyPrime MCP server for Claude Desktop

ComplyEaze Bridge: TallyPrime MCP server for Claude Desktop

Official

validate_masters

Read-only

Bind 1-100 ledger names to a live TallyPrime catalogue and return exact, identifier, near-miss, or missing match states so only exact matches can be used for voucher import.

Instructions

Bind 1–100 nonblank ledger names (at most 1024 characters each) against the live catalogue. An identifier embedded in a master name is matched before the name itself. match_state is exact, identifier, near_miss or missing; folded names remain near_miss candidates because this catalogue has no qualified scope to bind them. Only exact is admitted by build_import_xml, and a bound row alone carries exact_live_spelling. A missing or near_miss row without folded_twins whose name is, character for character, an alias of exactly one live ledger also carries alias_of, that ledger's name as Tally lists it: the row is still not bound and no alias is ever sent, so replace the name with alias_of only after an operator confirms that ledger is the one meant. A near-miss is never resolved: it returns candidates with the rule that surfaced each, bounded to 25 names and 8192 UTF-8 bytes per requested name, with candidate_count, candidate_count_is_lower_bound and truncation reported. When candidate_count_is_lower_bound is true, the count is a conservative lower bound and must be shown as at least that many candidates. There is no ranking and no score. 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.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company_guid": "<company_guid>",
      "ledgers": "<ledgers>"
    },
    "name": "validate_masters"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ledgersYes1 to 100 ledger names to bind against the live catalogue, each spelled as it will be written into a voucher.
company_guidYesThe company's company_guid, as list_companies returns it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / company_guid / description
      Added value: +"The company's company_guid, as list_companies returns it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / ledgers / description
      Added value: +"1 to 100 ledger names to bind against the live catalogue, each spelled as it will be written into a voucher."
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite readOnlyHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: no ranking, no scoring, near-misses never resolved, candidates capped at 25 names / 8192 UTF-8 bytes with truncation reported, candidate_count_is_lower_bound as a conservative floor, and metadata-only receipt lines written to a local log while nothing is written to Tally.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core verb, resource, and matching rules, and no sentence is filler. The tradeoff is density: the alias_of and folded_twins sentences are long, multiply-nested clauses that take real effort to parse on first read.

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, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return shape — match_state values, folded_twins, alias_of, candidate lists with surfacing rules, candidate_count, the lower-bound flag, and truncation — and it does so. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or act on the result 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their constraints; the description mostly restates them (1–100 names, 1024 characters each). It does add useful semantic framing — identifier matching runs before the name itself, and names should be spelled as they will appear on the voucher — but that is matching behavior more than parameter semantics.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb, resource, and scope: bind 1–100 nonblank ledger names against the live catalogue. That is enough to separate it from the sibling listing tools such as masters and ledger_masters, though it never names a sibling explicitly to complete the differentiation.

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?

Usage context is clear and actionable: this call gates build_import_xml, which admits only `exact`; `alias_of` must be applied only after an operator confirms; near-misses are never auto-resolved. It stops short of stating when to reach for a different sibling tool instead.

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