Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Finalise an SMSF annual return

finalise_smsf_return
Destructive

Freezes SMSF tax return figures into a snapshot and locks the financial year, failing with a blocker list until all sections and checks pass. Never lodges the return.

Instructions

Finalise the tax return: freezes every figure into a snapshot so later ledger changes no longer move it, and locks the financial year. Requires every section confirmed, no blocking gaps and no blocking checks (see get_return_checks); otherwise fails with the list of blockers. Ask the user before calling. Declarations and lodgement are then done by people in the web app; unfinalising is web-only too. Never lodges. confirm must be true — only pass it after the user has said to finalise this return.

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>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "finalise_smsf_return"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmYesMust be true: the user has explicitly asked to finalise this return
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.
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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description goes much further: it explains exactly what gets locked (financial year) and frozen (all figures), that later ledger changes will not move the snapshot, that failure returns a list of blockers, and that the API itself never lodges. It also discloses the irreversibility through the API by noting unfinalising is web-only.

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 front-loaded with the core action and its effect, then layers prerequisites, failure behavior, post-finalisation workflow, and confirmation requirements. Every sentence carries operational value, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 destructive, state-locking mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, precondition checks, blocker failure mode, user-consent requirement, downstream human steps, and the fact that it never lodges. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of confirm and ties it to user consent, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for fund_id, smsf_return_id, reasoning, or external_ref; those are fully documented in the schema.

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 and resource ('Finalise the tax return') and immediately clarifies the concrete effect: freezes figures into a snapshot and locks the financial year. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lodge_financial_year and confirm_smsf_return_section by stating it never lodges and that declarations/lodgement happen in the web app.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit preconditions (all sections confirmed, no blocking gaps, no blocking checks) and points to get_return_checks for verification. It clearly instructs the agent to ask the user before calling and to pass confirm=true only after explicit user approval, and it notes that unfinalising is web-only, which prevents misuse.

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