tally-mcp-server

get_day_book

Fetch the chronological Day Book for the active company over a date range, showing all transactions in order. Specify from and to dates to view ledger activity for any period.

Instructions

Fetch the Day Book (chronological transaction listing) for the active company over a date range.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_day_book"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`toDate`	No	Period end as YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD. Defaults to Tally's current period.
`fromDate`	No	Period start as YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD. Defaults to Tally's current period.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only fetch, chronological ordering, and date-range scope, but it does not mention output format, pagination, or what happens if no active company is set. It is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the resource, its nature, scope, and range in a compact form.

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 simple read operation with two optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description sufficiently identifies the resource, its chronological nature, and its scope. It lacks explicit alternative routing and behavioral caveats, but the tool is simple enough that these are not critical.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters, including formats and default behavior. The description only restates 'date range' and adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and names a clear resource ('Day Book'), with a parenthetical explaining it as a chronological transaction listing. This is distinct enough from siblings like get_ledger or list_vouchers that an agent can identify the intended purpose.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when a chronological transaction listing for the active company over a date range is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools, exclusions, or prerequisites such as ensuring an active company is selected.

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

Deploy Server