Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Compare a return with another year

compare_smsf_returns
Read-only

Compares every numeric field on an SMSF return with another year's return, showing current, prior, change, and percentage change while omitting fields that are zero in both years.

Instructions

Compare every numeric field on the return with another year's return (default: the year before): current, prior, change and % change. Fields that are zero in both years are left out.

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>",
      "smsf_return_id": "<smsf_return_id>"
    },
    "name": "compare_smsf_returns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fund_idYesFund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
financial_yearNoYear to compare with, e.g. "2023-24" (default: the prior year)
smsf_return_idYesSMSF return ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: the output columns (current, prior, change, % change) and the exclusion rule that fields zero in both years are dropped. This tells the agent the result is a sparse, filtered comparison rather than a full echo of both returns. Only the response shape and behaviour when the target year is absent remain unstated.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action and default stated first and the field-exclusion caveat second. Every clause carries information: scope, default, output fields, and filtering rule. Nothing is redundant.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of describing the return shape and a filtering rule. It is nearly complete; the only gap is what happens when the comparison year has no return or the fund has no prior-year data.

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 already document themselves, including the financial_year default and the whoami/list_funds hint for fund_id. The description repeats the prior-year default but adds no new format, range, or constraint semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Compare') plus a precise object ('every numeric field on the return with another year's return'), which is distinct from siblings like get_smsf_return, list_smsf_returns and get_return_checks. It stops short of naming those siblings, but an agent can still tell this is the year-over-year diff tool rather than a plain read.

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 parenthetical '(default: the year before)' implies the common case for omitting financial_year, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no guidance on when to use get_smsf_return twice instead, and no note about prerequisites such as the compared year's return existing.

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