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

Run a dry-run year-end close for a calendar year: check for unresolved items, verify balances, detect existing closes, and generate the Dec 31 profit-entry and Jan 1 transfer drafts.

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. 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"
+}
  2. Addedv0.25.3
  3. Removedv0.25.2
  4. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those hints: it performs unresolved-item checks, balance checks, existing-close detection, generates two draft entries, and explicitly does not zero revenue/expense accounts. This gives the agent a solid understanding of what the dry run actually does.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Dry-run calendar-year close'), then efficiently enumerates the checks and the specific entries. Every clause adds useful information.

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?

For a non-mutating dry-run tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the operation's scope, method, checks, generated drafts, and an important exclusion (accounts not zeroed). Since it is a dry run, there are no side effects to warn about, and the absence of an output schema is not a significant gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, such as how reserve_capital_amount interacts with the generated drafts. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description names a specific operation ('Dry-run calendar-year close'), specifies the method ('RIK's e-arveldaja method'), and lists concrete deliverables (Dec 31 result entry and Jan 1 transfer with account numbers). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling execute_year_end_close by emphasizing dry-run, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

The word 'Dry-run' and the mention of 'existing-close detection' make it clear this is a preparatory/preview operation rather than an execution. However, the description does not explicitly name execute_year_end_close as the follow-up tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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