Skip to main content
Glama
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau

Correct a balance-sheet item

update_balance_item
Destructive

Correct an existing balance-sheet line by updating only the amount, label, side, kind, or display order you pass; changes are rejected if the financial year is closed or lodged.

Instructions

Correct an existing balance-sheet line (amount, label, side, kind or display order). Only the fields you pass are changed. Rejected if the financial year is already closed or lodged.

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": "update_balance_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
sideNo
labelNo
amountNoAmount in AUD as a positive magnitude
fund_idYesFund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
positionNo
reasoningNoWhy you are making this change — recorded on the audit log entry for this write
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_yearYesFinancial year — the label "2023-24" or its numeric id (from list_financial_years)
balance_item_idYesBalance item ID (from list_balance_items)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It clarifies partial-update semantics by saying only passed fields change, and it discloses a key precondition failure mode around closed or lodged financial years. It does not discuss audit-log behavior or idempotency, but those are covered in the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The primary purpose and the critical precondition are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes information relevant to selecting and invoking the tool.

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 destructive update tool with 10 parameters, the description covers the essential correction semantics and the closed/lodged-year rejection condition. Annotations and schema fill in safety and parameter details, including audit reasoning and idempotency. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to explain return values for this operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is moderate at 60%, and the description adds some meaning by mapping the editable fields and clarifying that only supplied fields are updated. It also explains position as display order, which is not described in the schema. However, it does not add substantial semantics beyond what the schema already provides for IDs, reasoning, external_ref, and financial_year.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: correct an existing balance-sheet line. It also names the editable fields, making the operation concrete. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as record_balance_item or delete_balance_item, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

The description makes clear this is for correcting an existing line, not creating one. It also gives an important when-not condition: rejection if the financial year is closed or lodged. It does not name alternative tools for closed years or other correction paths, so it falls short of explicit when-to-use/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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