Skip to main content
Glama
MarketingBNG

tally-mcp

by MarketingBNG

tally_make_workpaper

Read-only

Run and document one audit procedure or TallyPrime report as a Markdown workpaper for audit files, with objective, parameters, results, limitations, and reproducing call.

Instructions

Run one audit procedure and render it as a workpaper: a Markdown document carrying the objective, the population, the method and its parameters, the results, the limitations, and the exact call that reproduces it.

TWO KINDS OF PAPER, and the document says which it is:

  • test — an audit PROCEDURE this server performed over the voucher population (same values as tally_test_vouchers). The paper states the population, what was excluded and why, and the parameters applied.

  • report — one of TALLYPRIME'S OWN report views, recorded as Tally produced it (same values as tally_get_report). There is no population and nothing was selected or tested: the rule deciding what appears on it is TallyPrime's. The paper says so in its own header, because a report printout filed as though it were a performed procedure overstates the work done. Give exactly one of the two. Supplying both, or neither, is refused rather than defaulted.

WHEN TO USE: when the output has to go into an audit file rather than just answer a question in conversation. Use tally_test_vouchers to explore; use this once you know which procedure you are documenting.

IT RE-RUNS THE PROCEDURE. It does not accept figures and format them — it queries TallyPrime again and renders what came back, so every number in the document is from the books rather than from this conversation. Do NOT paste results into it; pass the same parameters you would pass to tally_test_vouchers and let it fetch. If the figures differ from an earlier run, the books changed, and that is worth knowing.

IT DOES NOT WRITE THE CONCLUSION. Supply conclusion if you have reached one. If you do not, the document says the conclusion was not recorded, rather than inventing one — an unsigned workpaper should look unsigned. Never fill this parameter with your own inference from the results; it is the auditor's to write.

RETURNS: markdown, the rendered document, plus the structured result it was rendered from so nothing is lost. Save the markdown to the audit file.

Read-only: nothing here can modify TallyPrime.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
testNoWhich procedure to run and document. Same values as tally_test_vouchers. Give either this or `report`, not both.
partyNoRestrict to vouchers with this party.
queryNoRestrict to vouchers matching this text.
ledgerNoRestrict to vouchers against this ledger.
reportNoDocument one of TallyPrime's own report views instead of running a procedure. Same values as tally_get_report. Give either this or `test`, not both. The document is rendered differently and says plainly that it records a report as TallyPrime produced it, not a procedure this server performed — see the tool description.
toDateNoEnd of the period, ISO YYYY-MM-DD. Must be on or after fromDate.
companyNoCompany name. Omit to use whichever company TallyPrime has loaded. If given and it is not the loaded one, the call fails with TALLY_COMPANY_NOT_LOADED rather than returning another company's data.
fromDateNoStart of the period, ISO YYYY-MM-DD. Omit both dates for the financial year containing today; the resolved range is echoed back.
maxAmountNoRestrict to vouchers at most this large.
minAmountNoRestrict to vouchers at least this large.
objectiveYesWhat this procedure was performed to establish, in your words. Required — a workpaper without a stated objective cannot be reviewed, because there is no way to judge whether the work done was the work needed.
referenceNoYour working paper reference, e.g. "C-140". Rendered in the header.
thresholdNojournal_screen only: normally your materiality figure.
conclusionNoWhat you concluded from the results. Optional, and NEVER to be filled in on the auditor's behalf: omitted renders as "not recorded", which is the honest state of a paper nobody has signed off.
cutoffDaysNocutoff only.
preparedByNoWho performed the procedure. Renders as "not recorded" when omitted.
sampleSeedNosample only: pass to reproduce.
sampleSizeNosample only.
voucherTypeNoRestrict the population to this type.
sampleMethodNo
benfordDigitsNo
relatedPartiesNo
roundMultipleOfNoWhat counts as round.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover read-only/open-world, but the description adds the behaviors that actually matter: it RE-RUNS the procedure against TallyPrime rather than formatting pasted figures, it refuses to invent a conclusion, and it returns markdown plus the structured result. These are material operational facts not present in any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb+resource, then headed sections (TWO KINDS, WHEN TO USE, IT RE-RUNS, RETURNS, Read-only) that make the long text scannable. It is verbose for its size and repeats 'same values as tally_test_vouchers' across description and schema, but for a 23-parameter tool with two modes the length is largely earned.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the return payload (markdown plus the structured result it was rendered from) and tells the agent to save the markdown. Combined with the mode semantics, refusal behavior, and safety statement, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already 87%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic content on top: the test/report mutual exclusivity, the rule that conclusion must never be filled with the model's own inference, the rationale for required objective, and that threshold is normally materiality. Filter params (party/query/ledger/amounts) are left to the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run one audit procedure and render it as a workpaper') and immediately names the two output kinds, test vs report. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the siblings it shares values with (tally_test_vouchers, tally_get_report), so an agent can place it 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' block: file-into-an-audit-file vs. answer-in-conversation, with 'Use tally_test_vouchers to explore; use this once you know which procedure you are documenting.' It also states the hard exclusion (exactly one of test/report; both or neither is refused rather than defaulted).

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