Skip to main content
Glama
ComplyEaze

ComplyEaze Bridge: TallyPrime MCP server for Claude Desktop

Official

verify_import

Checks a saved Tally import batch against the company's books and records proof files, showing which vouchers posted, duplicates, and unverified entries.

Instructions

Read back a manually imported local batch and write Proof-of-Post files. This never dispatches import XML to Tally. The result gives verification_status, counts, every voucher that is not posted_verified (unverified_vouchers; for a native post a voucher may be bound_not_in_window, book_rolled_back or sent_not_attributed, never absence, with post_span_binding naming how the post was attributed and a plain summary to give the person first; a book restored from a backup and then keyed past the post's voucher mark before this check is not seen as rolled back, and Tally then gives vouchers keyed again the post's MasterIDs, GUIDs and numbers, so a bound voucher can read posted_verified while being one keyed by hand with the same content: measured once, bridge#1050. In plain words: after a restore, a native voucher keyed again with the same content before any check can read verified, and no identifier a read returns tells the two apart (measured once on TallyPrime 7.1 Silver, with Tally's security off), so after restoring a backup over a company, check its posted vouchers in Tally), duplicates, unrelated_duplicates_in_window and ambiguous_within_batch in full, never cut to fit. Only the posted_verified vouchers are paged, as items from offset out of verified_total; when the response cap shortens them it sets truncated and next_offset. To read further pages, call again with proof_sha256 set to the returned proof.sha256 and offset set to next_offset: those pages come from the persisted proof and never read Tally again. The call is refused with verification_proof_changed if a newer verification has since become the batch's current proof, with verification_proof_altered if the saved proof no longer matches its recorded SHA-256, and with verification_too_large_to_report if the parts never cut do not fit the response cap. The first page also carries a transfers section for the company, in the shape build_import_xml returns: the bank rows skipped as carried by another account's Contra that are not yet paired with a verified Contra, by bridge_txn_id and date. It is computed after the verdict is saved and changes no verdict; transfers.state not_established means it could not be computed (for example another process holds the import folder) or was cut to fit the response, not that nothing is open. A later page never carries it. Every verification's full proof is kept on disk; none is replaced. Reads the batch's date window from Tally, then adds new proof files for the batch beside every earlier one and a status record naming them current, and may also add a verified baseline, a masters-check record and, for a native post, the binding of its vouchers to the Tally vouchers its post created, in ComplyEaze Bridge's local folder on this computer, replacing and deleting nothing there (paging an existing proof only reads it); writes nothing to Tally.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetNoHow many rows to skip before this page: 0, the default, is the first page.
batch_idYesThe batch_id build_import_xml returned for the saved batch.
company_guidYesThe company's company_guid, as list_companies returns it.
proof_sha256NoOn a later page only: the proof.sha256 the first page returned, so the page is served from that saved proof without reading Tally again.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.4.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / batch_id / description
      Added value: +"The batch_id build_import_xml returned for the saved batch."
    • addedInput schema / properties / company_guid / description
      Added value: +"The company's company_guid, as list_companies returns it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Added value: +"How many rows to skip before this page: 0, the default, is the first page."
    • addedInput schema / properties / proof_sha256 / description
      Added value: +"On a later page only: the proof.sha256 the first page returned, so the page is served from that saved proof without reading Tally again."
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite thin annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the full behavioral profile: named refusal codes (verification_proof_changed, verification_proof_altered, verification_too_large_to_report), the persistence model ('every verification's full proof is kept on disk; none is replaced'), the exact write target, and the guarantee that it 'replaces and deletes nothing' and 'writes nothing to Tally.' This is far beyond what the annotations convey and is consistent with them.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The first sentence is well front-loaded, but the rest collapses into a single sprawling run-on paragraph with deeply nested parentheticals (the bridge#1050 aside, the restore caveat, the transfers digression) that are hard to parse. The valuable content is present but poorly structured, and several clauses repeat the same 'measured once' caveat.

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?

For a complex, stateful, side-effecting tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, pagination, refusal conditions, the transfers section, and every filesystem side effect. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the individual schema fields by explaining the cross-parameter contract for paging (proof_sha256 must be the returned proof.sha256, offset must be next_offset) and the fact that such pages 'never read Tally again.'

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read back a manually imported local batch and write Proof-of-Post files') and immediately delimits scope with 'This never dispatches import XML to Tally,' which separates it from the build_import_xml sibling it names later. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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 clear operational routing: how to page ('call again with proof_sha256 set to the returned proof.sha256 and offset set to next_offset'), when the call is refused, and that only the first page carries the transfers section. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related read/validation siblings, so it falls short of naming alternatives and exclusions.

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