Skip to main content
Glama
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau

Carry a prior-year balance item into a holding

reclassify_balance_item_to_holding

Reclassify a prior-year balance item as part of a holding from 1 July of the next year, recording a transfer-in without cash movement or gain; preview with dry_run before applying.

Instructions

Say that a prior-year asset balance item became part of a holding from 1 July of the next year — e.g. an air conditioner carried as plant beside a property, which the next 30 June valuation of the property includes. No cash moves and net assets don't change: the next year's movement schedule shows the amount as a transfer in to the holding (not a purchase or an unrealised gain), so the operating statement reports no gain for it. financial_year is the item's own year (it may be lodged — it isn't changed); the next year must be open. dry_run (default true) returns the holding's movement before → after and the change to the operating result; apply with dry_run: false once the user agrees. remove: true undoes it.

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>",
      "balance_item_id": "<balance_item_id>"
    },
    "name": "reclassify_balance_item_to_holding"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoWhy — shown with the transfer
removeNoUndo an earlier reclassification
dry_runNoDefault true: preview only
fund_idYesFund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
reasoningNoWhy you are making this change — recorded on the audit log entry for this write
holding_idNoHolding it became part of (required unless remove)
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.
financial_yearYesThe balance item's financial year, e.g. "2023-24"
balance_item_idYesBalance item ID (from list_balance_items)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.14.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false supplied, the description carries the burden and delivers: it discloses the mutation's downstream effects (movement schedule shows a transfer in, operating statement reports no gain), a precondition (financial_year may be lodged and is untouched, the following year must be open), a preview default with what the preview returns, and an undo path via remove: true.

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 core concept and illustration, then moving through accounting consequences, preconditions, and the dry-run/undo controls. It is dense but every sentence carries information; only the valuation-date detour is slightly discursive.

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 9-parameter financial mutation with no output schema, the description covers the accounting effect, preconditions, preview return contents, and reversal. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely and 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 genuine meaning beyond the schema: financial_year is specifically the item's own year and is not modified, the next year must be open, dry_run defaults true, and remove undoes an earlier reclassification. holding_id's requirement is already in the schema, so the gain is on the temporal/state semantics rather than every parameter.

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?

Names the specific operation (prior-year balance item becomes part of a holding from 1 July of the next year) and grounds it in a concrete example (air conditioner carried as plant, absorbed into the property's next 30 June valuation). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like record_balance_item, update_balance_item or link_balance_item_to_ato.

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?

Gives a clear triggering scenario and implicitly rules out a purchase or unrealised gain (no cash moves, no net asset change, transfer-in line). It also prescribes the dry-run-then-apply workflow once the user agrees. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it displaces or stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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