Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Update fund details (ABN, auditor, tax agent)

update_fund_details

Destructive

Set or update SMSF fund details used on the annual return—ABN, establishment date, postal address, ESA, auditor, and tax agent—changing only the fields supplied.

Instructions

Set the fund details the SMSF annual return prints: ABN (item 3; spaces are stripped and the ATO checksum is enforced), establishment date, postal address, electronic service address alias, the SMSF auditor with SAN and contact details (item 6), and the tax agent with agent number — or tax_agent "none" when the trustees self-lodge (Section K declarations). Pass financial_year to also record the auditor on that year's audit engagement (refused for a closed/lodged year); without it the auditor becomes the fund's standing appointment, used for any year whose engagement names none. Only the fields you pass change. The fund's TFN can NOT be set here — it is entered by the trustee on the web.

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_fund_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`abn`	No	Australian business number, 11 digits (spaces allowed)
`name`	No	Fund name as registered
`auditor`	No	The fund's approved SMSF auditor (return item 6). Matched to an existing auditor by SAN, then by name; otherwise created. Contact details passed here update that auditor's record.
`fund_id`	Yes	Fund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
`esa_alias`	No	Electronic service address alias (item 7 C)
`reasoning`	No	Why you are making this change — recorded on the audit log entry for this write
`tax_agent`	No
`wound_up_on`	No	Date the fund was wound up, if it has been (the return's item 9 comes from it) as an ISO date, e.g. "2026-05-30"
`external_ref`	No	Your 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.
`postal_state`	No
`postal_suburb`	No
`financial_year`	No	Year whose audit engagement should name this auditor, e.g. "2024-25"
`postal_postcode`	No
`establishment_date`	No	Date the fund was established (the return's 5 C first-return answer comes from it) as an ISO date, e.g. "2026-05-30"
`postal_address_line1`	No
`postal_address_line2`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.0Nov 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / establishment_date / description

Previous value: -"Date the fund was established as an ISO date, e.g. \"2026-05-30\""New value: +"Date the fund was established (the return's 5 C first-return answer comes from it) as an ISO date, e.g. \"2026-05-30\""

addedInput schema / properties / wound_up_on

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Date the fund was wound up, if it has been (the return's item 9 comes from it) as an ISO date, e.g. \"2026-05-30\"",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Addedv1.8.1Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses real behavior: ABN spaces are stripped and the ATO checksum enforced, the auditor is matched by SAN then name then created, contact details overwrite the auditor record, a closed/lodged year causes refusal, and only passed fields change. That last point materially softens the destructiveHint=true annotation, which would otherwise suggest wholesale replacement.

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?

The field inventory is front-loaded and the conditional financial_year logic follows, so an agent gets the scope before the branching rules. It is dense — one long clause chain plus a follow-up paragraph — but nearly every clause carries behavioral information rather than restating the schema.

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 16-parameter, nested-object mutation with no output schema, it covers the essential semantics: partial-update behavior, validation, year scoping, and one hard exclusion. The remaining gap is downstream impact — because auditor records are matched/created and their contacts overwritten, changes could affect other funds sharing that auditor, which the description does not mention.

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?

With 63% schema coverage, the description adds genuine meaning for the highest-risk parameters: ABN normalization/checksum, auditor identity resolution, financial_year scoping, and the tax_agent "none" sentinel for self-lodging trustees. It leaves postal_* components, name, and wound_up_on to the schema, but those are largely self-describing.

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 names a concrete verb and resource and enumerates exactly what 'fund details' means: ABN, establishment date, postal address, ESA alias, SMSF auditor with SAN, and tax agent. It also anchors each field to its annual-return item (item 3, item 6, item 7C, Section K), which distinguishes this tool from return-field editors like update_smsf_return_field.

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?

It gives clear conditional guidance: pass financial_year to bind the auditor to that year's engagement, omit it to set the standing appointment, and it warns the financial_year path is refused for a closed/lodged year. It also states the TFN exclusion and points at the web for that. It stops short of naming sibling tools (e.g. update_smsf_return_field) as the alternative for return-field edits, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server