Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Edit a member statement field on the return

update_smsf_member_field

Override a single field on an SMSF member’s information statement, such as employer contributions or closing balance; leaving the value blank restores the figure from the member statement.

Instructions

Override one field of a member's information statement on the return (e.g. employer_contributions, income_stream_payment, closing_balance). Blank reverts to the figure from the member statement.

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>",
      "smsf_return_id": "<smsf_return_id>",
      "member_id": "<member_id>",
      "field_key": "<field_key>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "update_smsf_member_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYesNew value (blank to revert)
fund_idYesFund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
field_keyYesMember field key, e.g. "employer_contributions", "closing_balance"
member_idYesFund member ID (from get_smsf_return members)
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.
smsf_return_idYesSMSF return ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write, so the description's job is to add consequence detail — and it does, by disclosing that an empty value reverts to the figure sourced from the member statement, which is genuine revert semantics beyond the annotations. It does not say whether the override is audited, whether it invalidates return checks, or what happens to downstream calculations, but the core mutation behavior is clear.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the action and scope come first, followed by the revert rule. The parenthetical examples earn their place by removing ambiguity about what a field_key looks like.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is changed and how to undo it, and the schema covers every parameter plus audit and idempotency hooks. What is missing is the surrounding state context — interaction with return checks, confirmed sections, or lodgement status — which matters for a tool that edits a lodged return.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including value's blank-to-revert behavior, field_key examples, and external_ref idempotency. The description only restates field_key examples and the blank semantics, adding no new meaning beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (override) and a precise resource (one field of a member's information statement on the return), and the three example field keys make the target unambiguous. It does not name the near-siblings update_smsf_return_field (return-level field) or update_member_statement, so an agent must infer the member-level scope from the wording alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for correcting a member's statement line on a return, and the 'blank reverts' clause hints at the undo path. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of whether overrides are permitted after a section is confirmed or the return lodged, and no routing to the sibling tools that edit return-level fields or the member statement itself.

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