Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Remove a balance-sheet item

delete_balance_item
Destructive

Soft-deletes a balance-sheet line so it no longer feeds the return or financial statements; requests are rejected if the financial year is closed or lodged.

Instructions

Soft-delete a balance-sheet line so it stops feeding the return and financial statements. Rejected if the financial year is already closed or lodged.

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>",
      "balance_item_id": "<balance_item_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_balance_item"
  }
}

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
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)
balance_item_idYesBalance item ID (from list_balance_items)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the key nuance that the delete is a *soft* delete rather than a hard purge, plus the closed/lodged-year guard. It doesn't mention the audit-log requirement or the external_ref replay behavior, though those live in the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its effect, followed by the blocking condition. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema details.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is affected, that it is soft, and the main rejection case. It could note that the audit trail is preserved and that repeats with the same external_ref are replayed, but the schema already carries those.

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% and every parameter is documented there (fund_id discovery, reasoning audit log, external_ref idempotency, year format, item id). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 and resource ('Soft-delete a balance-sheet line') and adds the downstream effect ('stops feeding the return and financial statements'), which clearly separates it from sibling update_balance_item and list_balance_items.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition for failure — the call is rejected if the financial year is closed or lodged — which tells the agent when the tool cannot be used. It stops short of naming the alternative path (e.g. reopen_financial_year or update_balance_item instead of delete), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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