Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Generate a compliance document

generate_compliance_document

Generates an SMSF annual compliance document from ledger figures, filling its required fields and listing any still missing. Finalize to freeze it, or mark it not applicable.

Instructions

Generate one of the year's generated compliance documents in Alpha — what the Generate button on the Compliance step does (e.g. operating_statement, statement_of_financial_position, trustee_minutes, trustees_declaration; the part after "compliance_document:" in a check key). Figures come from the ledger; answers fill the document's own fields (the result lists them, with any still missing). Running it again updates the draft. finalize: true freezes it and its check reads Done (refused while required fields are blank); not_applicable: true marks it N/A instead. Uploaded types (bank statements, signed files) are refused — use upload_document + mark_compliance_document_prepared. Refused for a locked year or a document already finalised (reopen it on the web).

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>",
      "document_type": "<document_type>"
    },
    "name": "generate_compliance_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Internal notes on the document
`title`	No
`answers`	No	Field key → value; repeatable fields take an array of row objects
`fund_id`	Yes	Fund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
`finalize`	No	Freeze the document so it counts as done
`reasoning`	No	Why you are making this change — recorded on the audit log entry for this write
`external_ref`	No	Your 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.
`document_type`	Yes	Compliance document type, e.g. "operating_statement"
`financial_year`	Yes	Financial year — the label "2023-24" or its numeric id (from list_financial_years)
`not_applicable`	No	Mark it not applicable for this year instead

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.14.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavior: figures are pulled from the ledger, rerunning updates the draft rather than duplicating, finalize freezes the document and flips its check to Done, not_applicable marks it N/A, and finalisation is refused while required fields are blank. The only gap is that idempotency via external_ref is left to 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and dense with useful detail; nearly every clause carries information. It loses a little readability from stacked parenthetical asides and the mid-sentence type list, which makes it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema and no enum hints, the description covers the mutation semantics, refusal cases and the alternative workflow well. It partially compensates for the missing output schema by saying the result lists the document's fields and any still missing, though it does not describe the shape of the returned document.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 90%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining the semantics of finalize (freeze so the check reads Done), not_applicable (mark N/A instead), and answers (documents' own fields, with missing ones surfaced in the result), which are exactly the non-obvious parameters.

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 precise verb and resource ("Generate one of the year's generated compliance documents") and anchors it to a concrete UI equivalent (the Generate button on the Compliance step). Concrete examples of document_type values (operating_statement, statement_of_financial_position, trustee_minutes, trustees_declaration) make the resource unambiguous, and it is clearly separated from document-upload siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: uploaded types (bank statements, signed files) are refused, so use upload_document + mark_compliance_document_prepared instead. It also names when the call itself is refused (locked year, already-finalised document, missing required fields when finalize is true), so the agent knows both the alternative path and the blocking conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server