Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List depreciation schedules

list_depreciation_schedules
Read-only

Retrieve a fund's Div 43 capital works and Div 40 plant depreciation schedules with cost base, effective life, and per-year AUD deductions. Filter by financial year for that year's entries and D1/E1 totals.

Instructions

List the fund's depreciation schedules — Div 43 capital works (item 12 D1) and Div 40 plant such as an air conditioner (item 12 E1) — with each schedule's cost base, start date, effective life / rate and its calculated per-year entries (deductible amount and closing adjustable value, AUD). Pass financial_year to see only that year's entry per schedule plus the year's D1/E1 totals.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_depreciation_schedules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fund_idYesFund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
holding_idNoOnly this holding's schedules
financial_yearNoFinancial year — the label "2023-24" or its numeric id (from list_financial_years)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does disclose the shape of the result in meaningful detail (per-schedule cost base, effective life/rate, yearly deductible amount and closing adjustable value, AUD) plus the fact that supplying financial_year narrows output to one entry per schedule and adds D1/E1 totals. It does not cover ordering, pagination, volume, or what an empty result looks like, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 resource and its contents, with no filler or restated title. The first sentence is dense — multiple em-dash clauses and four enumerated return fields — which costs a little readability, but every clause carries information.

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 correctly takes on the job of describing return values and does so concretely, including currency and the two reporting modes. For a three-parameter read-only listing tool it is largely self-sufficient, with only minor gaps around ordering and edge-case results.

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 100%, so the schema baseline is already a 3, and the description adds genuine meaning on top: financial_year is explained as a filter that returns only that year's entry per schedule and aggregates the year's D1/E1 totals — a result-shaping effect the schema text does not convey. holding_id and fund_id are not elaborated in the description, but their schema descriptions already cover discovery via whoami/list_funds.

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 (list) and resource (the fund's depreciation schedules), then enumerates what is returned: cost base, start date, effective life / rate, per-year deductible amount and closing adjustable value in AUD. It also distinguishes the two schedule types (Div 43 item 12 D1 vs Div 40 item 12 E1), so an agent can tell it apart from create/update/delete_depreciation_schedule and calculate_depreciation without opening a schema.

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?

The only usage cue is conditional on a parameter: "Pass financial_year to see only that year's entry per schedule plus the year's D1/E1 totals." That is a useful behaviour switch but not a when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives rule, and the description never mentions calculate_depreciation or create_depreciation_schedule as the counterparts for computing or adding schedules.

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