Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Prepare Year-End Close

prepare_year_end_close
Read-onlyIdempotent

Dry-run a calendar-year close: detect unresolved items and existing closes, verify balances, and generate Dec 31 profit and Jan 1 transfer draft entries without zeroing revenue/expense accounts.

Instructions

Dry-run calendar-year close per RIK's e-arveldaja method: unresolved items, balance check, existing-close detection, and the two drafts — Dec 31 result entry (profit D 9000 / K 2970) and Jan 1 transfer (D 2970 / K 2960). Revenue/expense accounts are not zeroed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearYesFiscal year (YYYY)
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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.27.0
    • 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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety burden is met structurally. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the internal checks performed, the exact accounting entries drafted (D 9000/K 2970, D 2970/K 2960), and the non-obvious caveat that revenue/expense accounts are NOT zeroed. It stops short of covering permissions or error behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the checklist of behaviors. It is information-rich with minimal filler, though the accounting notation and field list make it heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the artifacts a dry-run generates (the two draft entries). Combined with annotation-covered safety and a fully documented schema, it is largely complete, missing only explicit routing to the execute tool and any error/permission notes.

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, reserve_capital_amount, and reserve_capital_account are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or defaults beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Dry-run calendar-year close') and enumerates exactly what the dry-run produces: unresolved items, balance check, existing-close detection, and two draft entries. The 'dry-run' qualifier cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling execute_year_end_close without ambiguity.

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 'dry-run' framing implies this is the preview counterpart to execute_year_end_close, but the description never names that sibling or explicitly states when to call this versus committing the close. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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