Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Execute Year-End Close

execute_year_end_close
Destructive

Create missing RIK year-end closing journal entries as drafts from prepared close data; requires confirm=true, with review and registration handled separately.

Instructions

Create the missing RIK year-end closing entries from prepare_year_end_close as draft journals (never books an existing entry twice). Requires confirm=true; review/register separately.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearYesFiscal year (YYYY)
confirmYesMust be true to create the closing journal entries
reserve_capital_amountNoPart of a profit to credit to reserve capital (default account: name-resolved Kohustuslik reservkapital, 2940) instead of retained earnings in the 1 January entry
reserve_capital_accountNoReserve capital account override for reserve_capital_amount
allow_additional_transferNoAcknowledge that a smaller same-direction 2970 → 2960 transfer for the year already exists on 1 January and book the proposed remainder anyway (transfers on other dates or ambiguous ones always need manual review)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.27.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / allow_additional_transfer
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Acknowledge that a smaller same-direction 2970 → 2960 transfer for the year already exists on 1 January and book the proposed remainder anyway (transfers on other dates or ambiguous ones always need manual review)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / reserve_capital_account
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Reserve capital account override for reserve_capital_amount",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / reserve_capital_amount
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Part of a profit to credit to reserve capital (default account: name-resolved Kohustuslik reservkapital, 2940) instead of retained earnings in the 1 January entry",
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
  3. Addedv0.25.3
  4. Removedv0.25.2
  5. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and readOnly=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: output is drafted (not directly booked) and existing entries are never booked twice, which is a real behavioral guarantee an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the create action and its safety guarantee are front-loaded before the confirm/follow-up note.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and five fully documented parameters, the description covers the prerequisite, the draft nature of the writes, and the anti-double-booking rule. Only the absence of explicit permission/auth requirements keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so year, confirm, and the three optional override/acknowledgement parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the confirm=true requirement and adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema fields.

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 (create) plus the exact resource (RIK year-end closing entries) and the output form (draft journals), and anchors it to the sibling prepare_year_end_close as the source. An agent can immediately tell this apart from prepare_year_end_close, generate_annual_report_data, or month_end_close_checklist.

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?

Gives a hard prerequisite (confirm=true) and the ordering relative to siblings (entries originate from prepare_year_end_close; review/register happen separately). It stops short of naming an explicit when-not condition, but the workflow context is clear.

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