Skip to main content
Glama
ComplyEaze

ComplyEaze Bridge: TallyPrime MCP server for Claude Desktop

Official

voucher_read_cost

Read-only

Check a company's voucher-read cost before calling vouchers, ledger_movement, or verify_import; see required census reads and the minimum time each call needs so you can plan reads.

Instructions

Say, before a call, the most census reads one call of vouchers, ledger_movement or verify_import will send on this company (a read can be refused before its census ends), and the least time a call that is not refused earlier spends on the gaps between them. The census follows the company's voucher mark, not the window: this figure is for one call, a narrower window does not lower it, and reading N days in N calls pays it N times. It is as of this call's own read of the mark; the next call reads the mark again. It reads the company's identity and then its marks (one paired read with an identity check on either side), the opening every windowed call makes, and sends no census and no voucher request. The count and the floor are derived from the mark and the gate's rules, not measured on this book, and the floor leaves out every data part. No estimate is made: measured is constant text, whole calls recorded in the protocol reference with their census reads, data parts, host, date and confidence, each marked as not a bound. Nothing is refused on this figure; the one refusal it can state is the one the read itself makes (voucher_window_book_too_large). 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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that it reads company identity and marks with an identity check, that the read itself can be refused (`voucher_window_book_too_large`), that the figure is derived not measured, and that each call appends metadata-only receipt lines to a local log while writing nothing to Tally. That is rich, useful behavioral detail complementing the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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?

A single dense block that is far longer than the operation warrants and is not front-loaded: the core answer (it returns a max read count and a floor) competes with tangents about `measured`, protocol references, and logging. Sentences do not earn their place, given the odd phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does try to sketch return values (count, floor, `measured`), and annotations carry the safety profile. But the sketch is opaque enough that an agent cannot confidently predict the response shape for a low-complexity single-param tool.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully (100% coverage, with its own description). The prose adds no format or lookup detail for company_guid, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description does state what the tool returns: the maximum census reads and the minimum gap-time a call of `vouchers`, `ledger_movement` or `verify_import` will incur, i.e. a cost estimator. But it is buried under undefined jargon ('census', 'marks', 'gate') and never names the tool's function cleanly, so an agent must reconstruct the purpose from scattered clauses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies the when ('Say, before a call...'), and clarifies that it is per-call and that narrower windows do not reduce the figure, which is genuine context. It does not name when to prefer this over a sibling or what action to take with the number.

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