Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List the auditor's document requests

list_auditor_requests
Read-only

List a fund's written auditor requests for a financial year, including 14-day due dates, days left, overdue status, and how each request was answered.

Instructions

List what the fund's auditor has asked for in writing for a year, with the 14-day due date (SIS Act s 35C(2)), days_left, overdue, and how each was answered. Anything beyond the required documents is produced only when asked for.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_auditor_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fund_idYesFund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
financial_yearYesFinancial year — the label "2023-24" or its numeric id (from list_financial_years)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest and does so usefully: it discloses the regulatory basis (SIS Act s 35C(2)), the 14-day statutory due date, and that responses carry derived compliance flags (days_left, overdue) and answered status. It does not describe ordering or volume limits, but the added context is substantial.

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 action and followed by the concrete fields the caller receives. The closing sentence about documents beyond the required set is domain color rather than operational guidance, so it is slightly off-purpose but not wasteful enough to penalize more.

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 and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description compensates by enumerating the meaningful return fields (due date, days_left, overdue, how answered). For a two-parameter read-only list tool this is nearly complete; only result ordering/size behavior is unaddressed.

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 both parameters (fund_id, financial_year) are documented in the schema, including discovery hints. The description reinforces the year scoping ('for a year') and fund context but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (the fund auditor's written document requests) scoped to a year. The verb+resource combination is unambiguous enough to separate it from answer_auditor_request or record_auditor_request, though no sibling is named.

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 retrieval framing ('list what the auditor has asked for in writing for a year'), and the compliance framing hints at tracking due dates. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus answer_auditor_request or record_auditor_request, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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