Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List ledger changes since the return was finalised

list_changes_since_finalised
Read-only

Lists ledger changes recorded after a tax return was finalised, showing who changed what and when so you can verify audited figures did not move.

Instructions

Ledger changes recorded after the tax return was finalised (who, when, what) — the figures the auditor was given should not have moved. Empty while the return stays finalised, since finalising locks the year; a note says so when the return isn't finalised yet and its figures can still change.

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_changes_since_finalised"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description does add real behavioural context beyond that — empty results while the year is locked, and a note when the return is not yet finalised — which is valuable. It stops short of covering pagination, ordering, or volume expectations for a change log.

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 what the tool returns, followed by the state-dependent behaviour. Dense but each clause carries information; the auditor framing earns its place by explaining why the list matters.

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 read-only, two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and both result states (empty vs. note). What's missing is minor: ordering and whether the change list can be long.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents fund_id and financial_year with discovery hints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but caps the score below 5.

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 resource and scope: ledger changes recorded after the tax return was finalised, with the columns it returns (who, when, what). An agent can tell this apart from the field-level transaction siblings, though it does not name a specific alternative by name.

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 rather than stated: the auditor framing signals an audit/review context, and the finalised-vs-not-finalised behaviour hints at when the tool is and isn't informative. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to a sibling for the not-yet-finalised case.

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