Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Audit, declaration and lodgement status

get_smsf_return_lodgement
Read-only

Retrieve SMSF return lodgement status, including audit outcome, open queries, trustee and agent declarations, lodging blockers, assessment notice, and due dates.

Instructions

Where a return stands after preparation: audit outcome and open queries, trustee and agent declarations, what still blocks lodging, the lodgement record, the notice of assessment and the due dates. Declaring and marking lodged are done by a person in the web app.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_smsf_return_lodgement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fund_idYesFund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
smsf_return_idYesSMSF return ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a status-read tool, and the description adds a capability boundary beyond the annotations: declaring and marking lodged must be done by a person in the web app, so the agent should not hunt for a write path. It stops short of describing response shape or how an unprepared return is represented.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core framing ('Where a return stands after preparation') followed by an enumerated payload list and a constraint. The comma-separated inventory is dense but every item is informative; 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by naming the six domains the response covers. Combined with a two-parameter, fully documented schema and a read-only annotation, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the shape of 'blockers' and due-date semantics remain unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the hint to discover fund_id via whoami or list_funds. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifiers or their relationship, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete resource and scope: the post-preparation state of an SMSF return, itemised as audit outcome, open queries, declarations, lodging blockers, lodgement record, notice of assessment and due dates. That is specific enough to separate it from siblings like get_smsf_return (raw field data) and list_smsf_return_gaps, though the verb is implied rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the enumerated contents ('what still blocks lodging', 'the lodgement record'), which suggests reaching for this when checking readiness to lodge. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance relative to get_return_checks, list_smsf_return_gaps or get_smsf_return, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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