Skip to main content
Glama
tillbooks

tillbooks

Official
by tillbooks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

set_aging_bucket_config

Adjust aging bucket boundaries to re-partition receivables for DACH reporting without altering totals or reconciliation.

Instructions

Redefine where the aging buckets cut, as a strictly increasing list of positive day counts (the default [30, 60, 90] gives 0-30, 31-60, 61-90 and 90+). This changes the VIEW only: the buckets re-partition the same receivables total and can never change it, and the reconciliation to 1100 Debitoren holds for any boundary set. It is a DACH reporting convention, not a statutory figure, and it is not a dunning deadline (A15 owns those). A repeat call under the same idempotencyKey writes nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspaceIdYes
boundariesDaysYes
idempotencyKeyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses non-destructive behavior ('changes the VIEW only', never changes totals), confirms reconciliation integrity, and specifies idempotency (repeat calls write nothing). This fully covers the safety profile and side effects.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose+example, scope clarification, and idempotency note. Front-loaded with the core action, no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a config setter with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, constraints, exclusions, and behavioral guarantees. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates: it explains boundariesDays format (strictly increasing positive day counts) with an example, and explains idempotencyKey semantics. workspaceId is left to convention, but that is standard and acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb ('redefine') and resource ('aging bucket config'), and clarifies the effect with an example. It also distinguishes from dunning deadlines and statutory figures, so an agent can identify its scope without confusion.

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?

Clearly states it is a view-only setting for DACH reporting and explicitly excludes dunning (A15 owns those). It does not name sibling tools like get_aging_bucket_config or aging_report, but the scope is unambiguous.

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