Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Calculate depreciation for a year

calculate_depreciation

Generates or refreshes each depreciation schedule's entry for a financial year, chaining adjustable values from earlier years and returning D1 and E1 totals in AUD.

Instructions

Generate (or refresh) each depreciation schedule's entry for a financial year, chaining the adjustable value from earlier years — the figures that land on return item 12 D1 (capital works) and E1 (decline in value) and clear gap G5. Returns the year's entries and D1/E1 totals in AUD (gross, before any exempt-pension split). Refused for a closed or lodged year; earlier locked years are never rewritten.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fund_id": "<fund_id>",
      "financial_year": "<financial_year>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_depreciation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fund_idYesFund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
reasoningNoWhy you are making this change — recorded on the audit log entry for this write
schedule_idNoOnly this schedule (default: all of the fund's schedules)
external_refNoYour stable ID for this write (e.g. a statement line or document reference). Repeating a call with the same external_ref replays the first result instead of writing twice.
financial_yearYesFinancial year — the label "2023-24" or its numeric id (from list_financial_years)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare write/non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context: chaining adjustable values from earlier years, the exact return items affected, AUD gross-before-exempt-pension output, and refusal for closed/lodged years. The statement that earlier locked years are never rewritten is especially valuable behavioral disclosure.

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 three front-loaded sentences with dense, relevant information and no filler. The computation, return values, and refusal conditions are presented in an order that lets an agent decide quickly whether and how to call it.

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 write operation with no output schema, the description explains both the calculation behavior and the returned values, including AUD gross treatment. It also covers important write constraints (closed/lodged years are refused, earlier locked years are untouched), leaving no critical gap given the fully documented schema.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters, including schedule_id defaulting to all schedules and external_ref idempotency. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Generate or refresh'), resource ('each depreciation schedule's entry for a financial year') and domain output ('return item 12 D1 and E1 and clear gap G5'). This clearly distinguishes the calculation step from sibling tools like create_depreciation_schedule or update_depreciation_schedule.

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 description gives a clear context ('for a financial year') and refusal conditions ('closed or lodged year'), which implicitly tells the agent when the tool is valid. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to use update_depreciation_schedule instead, so usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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