Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Record the year's tax position

update_tax_position

Create or update a financial year's SMSF tax position with partial field updates; figures feed the return's losses schedule and calculation statement and clear matching review checks.

Instructions

Create or update a financial year's tax position; only the fields you pass change. Feeds the return's losses schedule and calculation statement and clears the review checks tax_position_recorded and capital_losses_brought_forward when the figures agree with last year's return. A new position defaults the supervisory levy to the year's rate. Refused for a closed or lodged year. The fund's TFN is not part of the tax position and can't be set through the API — the trustee enters it on the web. AUD.

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_tax_position"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fund_idYesFund ID (discover via whoami or list_funds)
reasoningNoWhy you are making this change — recorded on the audit log entry for this write
ecpi_methodNoExempt current pension income method
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.
tax_losses_bfNoTax losses brought forward
financial_yearYesFinancial year — the label "2023-24" or its numeric id (from list_financial_years)
supervisory_levyNoSupervisory levy (13 L)
net_capital_loss_cfNoNet capital losses carried forward to later years
actuarial_percentageNoActuarial certificate exempt %, unsegregated method
tfn_withholding_creditNoCredit for TFN amounts withheld (13 H)
no_tfn_contributions_taxNoTax on no-TFN-quoted contributions (13 J)
paygi_instalments_raisedNoPAYG instalments raised for the year (13 K)
prior_year_capital_loss_bfNoNet capital losses brought forward from prior years

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare it as a non-read, non-destructive write. The description adds substantial context beyond that: partial-update semantics, downstream side effects (feeds the losses schedule and calculation statement), the specific review checks it clears, the default applied to a new position's supervisory levy, and the closed/lodged refusal rule. That is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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 verb and upsert rule, then layered with consequences, defaults, refusals and the TFN caveat — every sentence carries distinct information. It is dense and slightly run-on, but nothing is filler.

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 13-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers write semantics, side effects, defaults, refusal conditions and one notable field exclusion, which is close to complete. It does not describe what a successful call returns or how cleared review checks manifest, a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description adds only marginal meaning at that level (the supervisory levy default, the carry-forward reconciliation behavior). It does not clarify the enum choice for ecpi_method or the relationship between prior_year_capital_loss_bf and net_capital_loss_cf, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create or update a financial year's tax position') and immediately qualifies it with upsert semantics ('only the fields you pass change'). This distinguishes it from the read-side sibling get_tax_position without needing to open either schema.

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 states the conditions that block a write ('Refused for a closed or lodged year') and redirects one out-of-scope field to a different channel (TFN entered on the web). What's missing is an explicit pointer to get_tax_position for reading or to the close/lodge tools that create the refusal state, but the when-to-use context is otherwise clear.

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