Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Move a bank statement to another account

move_document_to_account
Destructive

Move a bank statement uploaded to the wrong bank account to the correct account in the same fund, preserving reconciled rows and listing hand-keyed rows left on the old account for review.

Instructions

Move a bank statement that was uploaded to the wrong bank account — its lines, the cash rows it posted and its closing-balance snapshot — to the right account of the same fund. Rows keep their reconciled tick. Hand-keyed rows the statement had adopted on the old account stay there, unlinked, and are listed in left_on_old_account for review. A statement whose printed account number doesn't match its account is not posted by reconcile_document (account_check "failed", with suggested_bank_account_ids); move it with this tool, then call reconcile_document.

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>",
      "document_id": "<document_id>",
      "bank_account_id": "<bank_account_id>"
    },
    "name": "move_document_to_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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_idYesBank statement document ID (from list_documents)
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.
bank_account_idYesThe account the statement belongs to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so mutation risk is already known; the description adds the substantive detail of what is destroyed or left behind — adopted hand-keyed rows remain on the old account, unlinked, and are surfaced in left_on_old_account for review, while reconciled ticks survive. It does not discuss permissions or whether the move can be reversed, which keeps it off 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?

Front-loaded with the action and reason for the action, then consequences, then the reconcile_document interplay. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight; the left_on_old_account explanation is slightly heavier than needed for a description without an output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers trigger conditions, side effects on adopted rows, preserved state, a return detail the agent should act on, and the follow-up call. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint not encoded in the schema: the destination must be an account of the same fund, which ties fund_id to bank_account_id. That is meaningful semantics beyond the field-level descriptions.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Move a bank statement... to the right account of the same fund', plus the scope of what travels with it (lines, cash rows, closing-balance snapshot). It is clearly separated from reconcile_document, whose failure mode is named as the trigger for this tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use (statement uploaded to the wrong account) and when-not (reconcile_document handles statements whose printed account number matches). It also supplies the sequencing rule: move first, then call reconcile_document, and identifies the account_check 'failed' signal that routes the agent here.

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