Skip to main content
Glama
ivossos

FCCS MCP Agentic Server

by ivossos

perform_journal_action

Execute journal actions like approve, reject, or post in Oracle EPM Cloud FCCS to manage financial consolidation workflows.

Instructions

Perform an action on a journal (approve, reject, post, etc.) / Executar acao em um diario

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
journal_labelYesThe journal label
actionYesAction to perform
parametersNoAdditional parameters

Implementation Reference

  • The main MCP tool handler function for perform_journal_action, which wraps the client call and returns formatted result.
    async def perform_journal_action(
        journal_label: str,
        action: str,
        parameters: Optional[dict[str, Any]] = None
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Perform an action on a journal (approve, reject, post, etc.) / Executar acao em um diario.
    
        Args:
            journal_label: The journal label.
            action: Action to perform (approve, reject, post, etc.).
            parameters: Additional parameters for the action.
    
        Returns:
            dict: Action result.
        """
        result = await _client.perform_journal_action(
            _app_name, journal_label, action, parameters
        )
        return {"status": "success", "data": result}
  • The input schema definition for the perform_journal_action tool in TOOL_DEFINITIONS.
    {
        "name": "perform_journal_action",
        "description": "Perform an action on a journal (approve, reject, post, etc.) / Executar acao em um diario",
        "inputSchema": {
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "journal_label": {"type": "string", "description": "The journal label"},
                "action": {"type": "string", "description": "Action to perform"},
                "parameters": {"type": "object", "description": "Additional parameters"},
            },
            "required": ["journal_label", "action"],
        },
    },
  • Registration of journal tools including perform_journal_action in the TOOL_HANDLERS dictionary.
    "get_journals": journals.get_journals,
    "get_journal_details": journals.get_journal_details,
    "perform_journal_action": journals.perform_journal_action,
    "update_journal_period": journals.update_journal_period,
    "export_journals": journals.export_journals,
    "import_journals": journals.import_journals,
  • Registration of tool definitions including journals.TOOL_DEFINITIONS (containing perform_journal_action schema) in ALL_TOOL_DEFINITIONS.
    ALL_TOOL_DEFINITIONS = (
        application.TOOL_DEFINITIONS +
        jobs.TOOL_DEFINITIONS +
        dimensions.TOOL_DEFINITIONS +
        journals.TOOL_DEFINITIONS +
        data.TOOL_DEFINITIONS +
        reports.TOOL_DEFINITIONS +
        consolidation.TOOL_DEFINITIONS +
        memo.TOOL_DEFINITIONS +
        feedback.TOOL_DEFINITIONS +
        local_data.TOOL_DEFINITIONS
    )
  • The underlying FCCS client method that makes the actual REST API call for performing journal actions.
    async def perform_journal_action(
        self,
        app_name: str,
        journal_label: str,
        action: str,
        parameters: Optional[dict[str, Any]] = None
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Perform journal action / Executar acao no lancamento."""
        if self.config.fccs_mock_mode:
            return {"journalLabel": journal_label, "action": action, "status": "Submitted"}
    
        payload = {"action": action, **(parameters or {})}
        response = await self._client.post(
            f"/{app_name}/journals/{quote(journal_label)}/actions{self._get_query_params()}",
            json=payload
        )
        response.raise_for_status()
        return response.json()
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this performs actions (implying mutation), it doesn't specify critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether actions are reversible, what happens on failure, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 brief but includes redundant bilingual text ('/ Executar acao em um diario') that doesn't add value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose but could be more structured to highlight key information. While not verbose, the redundancy slightly reduces efficiency.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity implied by an 'action' parameter and nested 'parameters' object, more context is needed to use this tool effectively.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify what specific actions are available or what 'parameters' object should contain). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool performs actions on journals (approve, reject, post, etc.), which is a clear purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about the specific scope of actions and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_journal_period' or 'export_journals' that also operate on journals. The bilingual format adds redundancy but doesn't clarify the purpose further.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_journal_period' or 'get_journal_details'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ivossos/fccs-mcp-ag-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server