Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Mark a compliance document prepared

mark_compliance_document_prepared

Mark a year's compliance document as prepared by linking its uploaded file or HTTPS URL, so the matching compliance check reads Done. Refused for locked years.

Instructions

Mark one of the year's compliance documents (e.g. trustee_residency_declaration, investment_strategy_review, trustee_minutes — the part after "compliance_document:" in a check key from get_return_checks) as prepared, by pointing at where it lives: document_id of a file already sent with upload_document, and/or url (an https link such as a Claude Docs page), plus an optional note. The check compliance_document: on the Compliance step then reads Done. Refused for a locked year.

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": "mark_compliance_document_prepared"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNohttps link to the prepared document
noteNoWhat it is / who prepared it
fund_idYesFund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
reasoningNoWhy you are making this change — recorded on the audit log entry for this write
document_idNoA fund document from upload_document
external_refNoYour 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_typeYesCompliance document type, e.g. "trustee_residency_declaration"
financial_yearYesFinancial year — the label "2023-24" or its numeric id (from list_financial_years)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the mutation flips a specific return check to Done, and the operation is rejected when the financial year is locked. It does not say whether marking is reversible or what happens on a repeat call for an already-prepared document, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the naming rule, then the effect, then the refusal condition. The first sentence is long and parenthesis-heavy, but almost every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is filler.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key unknowns: what the document_type string must look like, where the identifier comes from, what state change results, and the locked-year failure mode. Reversibility and behavior on repeat marks are the notable omissions.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by defining document_type semantically (the part after 'compliance_document:' in a check key) and clarifying that document_id and url are complementary ('and/or'). It adds little for fund_id, financial_year, note, or reasoning, which remain schema-only.

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 and resource ('Mark ... compliance documents ... as prepared') and pins the exact document_type vocabulary by pointing to the suffix of a 'compliance_document:' check key from get_return_checks. Enumerated examples (trustee_residency_declaration, investment_strategy_review, trustee_minutes) make it unmistakable versus siblings like upload_document or update_trustee_minutes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explains the prerequisite chain clearly: the file should already have been sent via upload_document, or an https url supplied, and the call points at where the document lives. It also states the observable outcome ('The check compliance_document:<type> ... then reads Done') and a hard exclusion ('Refused for a locked year'). No explicit sibling-alternative routing is given, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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