Fusion Holds & Funds Desk MCP

Get accounting period status

get_accounting_period_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Report Oracle Fusion AP/GL accounting period status (Open, Closed, etc.) by period name or invoice accounting date to resolve invoice accounting failures, date rejections, or period reopening.

Instructions

Report Oracle Fusion accounting period status for Payables (AP) and General Ledger (GL): Open, Closed, Permanently Closed, Never Opened, or Future Enterable. Query by period name, or by accountingDate to resolve the period that contains an invoice's accounting date. Use this when an invoice will not account, when an accounting date is rejected, or before asking for a period to be reopened. If a period status cannot be read it is reported as unavailable with the reason; a status is never assumed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`modules`	No	Which modules to report. Defaults to both AP and GL.
`ledgerName`	No	Ledger name, e.g. 'US Primary Ledger'. Falls back to FUSION_DEFAULT_LEDGER when omitted.
`periodName`	No	Accounting period name, e.g. 'MAR-26'.
`businessUnit`	No	Business unit, used for Payables period status. Falls back to FUSION_DEFAULT_BUSINESS_UNIT.
`accountingDate`	No	Resolve the period that contains this date. Use instead of periodName when you have an invoice date.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`meta`	Yes
`query`	Yes
`periods`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`nextSteps`	Yes
`assessment`	Yes
`disclaimers`	Yes
`openPeriods`	Yes
`unavailable`	Yes
`dataAvailability`	Yes	Whether the reported data is complete, partially available, or not available at all.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description adds meaningful extras: unreadable statuses are returned as 'unavailable' with a reason and 'a status is never assumed'. This error-handling contract is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage then behavior, with no filler. Slightly dense sentence one, but every clause carries information.

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 an output schema and full annotations available, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the one non-obvious behavioral case (unavailable status). Fallback defaults are noted, though the description could say more about how AP vs GL statuses relate when both are requested.

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 modules, ledgerName, periodName, businessUnit, and accountingDate, including defaults and fallbacks. The description restates the periodName-vs-accountingDate choice but adds no syntax or precedence detail beyond what the schema says, so the 3 baseline applies.

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 (report Oracle Fusion accounting period status for AP and GL) and enumerates the exact status values returned. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_invoice and get_invoice_holds by describing period-level resolution rather than invoice-level data.

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 explicit trigger conditions: when an invoice will not account, when an accounting date is rejected, or before asking for a period to be reopened. It does not name a competing alternative tool or state when *not* to use it, so it falls short of the 5-level bar for routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server