Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Confirm an SMSF return section

confirm_smsf_return_section

Confirms reviewed SMSF annual return sections and snapshots computed figures; refuses blocked or finalised returns and reports completion, unconfirmed sections, and remaining blockers.

Instructions

Confirm one section of an SMSF annual return: its computed figures are snapshotted as reviewed. Refused (with the reasons) while the section has blocking gaps, or the return is already finalised — fix those first (list_smsf_return_gaps). Returns the completion %, the sections still unconfirmed and what still blocks finalising. Only confirm a section after the user has reviewed it.

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>",
      "section_key": "<section_key>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_smsf_return_section"
  }
}

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
section_keyYesReturn section key, e.g. "fund_information", "income", "deductions", "tax_calc", "assets_liabilities", or "members" for the member information statement (the keys get_smsf_return lists)
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.
smsf_return_idYesSMSF return ID (from get_smsf_return / create_smsf_return)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: refusal semantics with reasons, the two refusal causes (blocking gaps, already-finalised return), and what the call returns (completion %, unconfirmed sections, remaining blockers). It does not mention idempotency or audit logging, which the schema covers via external_ref and reasoning.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then refusal conditions, then return value, then the human-review caution. Slightly dense with em-dash clauses but no filler sentences.

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 state-changing confirm tool without annotations beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, failure modes, and what comes back. The main gap is the absence of an output schema means return shape is described only in prose, and idempotency/audit behavior relies entirely on the 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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including section_key examples and external_ref replay semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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+resource (confirm one section of an SMSF annual return) plus the concrete effect: computed figures snapshotted as reviewed. This distinguishes it from siblings like reopen_smsf_return_section and finalise_smsf_return, which operate at different granularity.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite path (fix blocking gaps via list_smsf_return_gaps first) and states the precondition that the user must have reviewed the section. It does not explicitly say when to use reopen/finalise instead, but the section-level scope makes the boundary clear enough.

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