Skip to main content
Glama
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau

Correct a depreciation schedule

update_depreciation_schedule
Destructive

Correct a depreciation schedule's cost base, start date, effective life, rate, method, or description, recalculating open-year entries while preserving closed or lodged years.

Instructions

Correct a depreciation schedule's basis (cost base, start date, effective life, rate, method, description). Entries already calculated for open years are recalculated; closed or lodged years keep their stored figures. Only the fields you pass change.

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>",
      "schedule_id": "<schedule_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_depreciation_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rateNo
methodNoDiv 43 always uses "capital_works" (the default). Div 40: "prime_cost" (cost × days/365 × 100%/life) or "diminishing_value" (opening adjustable value × days/365 × 200%/life). Defaults to prime_cost for div40.
fund_idYesFund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
divisionNo"div43" capital works (building/structural, item 12 D1) or "div40" plant & equipment (item 12 E1)
cost_baseNo
reasoningNoWhy you are making this change — recorded on the audit log entry for this write
start_dateNoStart date as an ISO date, e.g. "2026-05-30"
descriptionNo
schedule_idYesDepreciation schedule ID (from list_depreciation_schedules)
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.
effective_life_yearsNo
opening_adjustable_valueNo

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?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses two important behavioral details: open-year entries are recalculated while closed or lodged years keep stored figures, and only passed fields are changed. It stops short of explaining audit logging, permissions, or reversibility, but it adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 three tight sentences: purpose first, recalculation behavior second, partial-update semantics third. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no wasted wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, recalculation scope, and partial updates well. It still omits meaningful detail on opening_adjustable_value, division interaction, response/return behavior, and confirmation or audit expectations.

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?

The description names most editable fields and adds the important partial-update semantics: 'Only the fields you pass change.' However, with 58% schema description coverage, it leaves opening_adjustable_value unexplained and does not compensate fully for the undocumented parameters.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Correct a depreciation schedule's basis.' It lists the editable basis fields and makes clear this is an update to an existing schedule, distinguishing it from create, delete, list, and calculate siblings.

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 first sentence clearly establishes when to use the tool: correcting an existing schedule's basis. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_depreciation_schedule or calculate_depreciation, but the context is strong enough that an agent can route correctly.

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