Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Remove a depreciation schedule

delete_depreciation_schedule
Destructive

Soft-delete a depreciation schedule and its open-year entries to stop them feeding item 12 D1/E1; entries in closed or lodged years are retained.

Instructions

Soft-delete a depreciation schedule and its entries in open years, so it stops feeding item 12 D1/E1. Entries in closed or lodged years are kept (those returns were prepared from them).

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>",
      "schedule_id": "<schedule_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_depreciation_schedule"
  }
}

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_idYesDepreciation schedule ID (from list_depreciation_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.

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 only say destructiveHint=true; the description adds the crucial nuance that this is a soft delete with selective scope (open-year entries only, lodged-year entries preserved and why). It stops short of saying whether the soft delete can be reversed/restored or what happens on a repeat call against an already-deleted schedule.

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, no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (soft delete, open years only) is front-loaded before the rationale for keeping lodged-year entries.

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, it covers scope, side effects and data preservation, which is the core an agent needs. Remaining gaps are reversibility/restore path and behavior on an already-deleted schedule.

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 fund_id, schedule_id, reasoning and external_ref are already fully documented, including the idempotency behavior of external_ref. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 ("Soft-delete a depreciation schedule") plus the downstream effect ("stops feeding item 12 D1/E1"). The 'soft-delete' qualifier alone distinguishes it from update_depreciation_schedule and delete_balance_item-style siblings.

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 clear context for when the tool's effect is partial: entries in open years go, closed/lodged years stay because those returns were prepared from them. It does not explicitly route the agent to update_depreciation_schedule when the intent is to zero out rather than remove, so an alternative-selection sentence is the missing piece.

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