Skip to main content
Glama

company_tie_out

Compare chain-built document figures against recorded books for the same window, show differences and tolerance status, and flag out-of-tolerance lines as weekly-review actions.

Instructions

Tie every chain-built document to the books recorded for the same window: product net revenue and cost of goods, services recognisable value, break-even fixed cost, and open receivables and payables, each beside the books' figure with the difference, whether it sits inside the plan's tolerance, and the reasons such a difference usually has (named, never chosen). A figure drawn from the books is not compared with them. Each line outside tolerance becomes a weekly-review action. payload_json takes an optional window_start and window_end; with none, the latest recorded books set the window. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nowNo
engineNo
operationNobuild
entity_refNo
project_idYes
bundle_jsonNo
payload_jsonNo{}

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.4

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

It explicitly states 'Read-only' and clarifies that figures from the books are not compared. It also mentions that out-of-tolerance lines become weekly-review actions, which implies a behavioral output. With no annotations, this disclosure is valuable, though the action creation is ambiguous in terms of side effects.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. It contains useful detail but could be more concise; some phrases like 'named, never chosen' add specificity but are cryptic. It is not overly long but could be better structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the payload parameter but omits explanations for other parameters and does not describe return values or output structure. It is sufficient for a high-level understanding but incomplete for full invocation guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only payload_json is explained (optional window_start and window_end), while the other six parameters (project_id, now, engine, operation, entity_ref, bundle_json) are not described. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 description clearly states the tool ties chain-built documents to books for a window, listing specific financial items (product net revenue, cost of goods, services value, break-even fixed cost, receivables, payables). It is specific and distinct from generic siblings like company_books or company_reconcile_bank, though 'chain-built' is jargon that may require domain knowledge.

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?

The description explains the main use case and parameter behavior (payload_json window), but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It hints at scope by mentioning 'chain-built documents' and excludes books-derived figures, but no sibling comparison is made.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools