Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

Create Customer

brc_create_customer

Creates a BRC customer from explicit code and name fields. Optional address, contact, credit and VAT fields are omitted when absent. Opening-balance fields are not posted. Requires a valid routeToken issued for the matching action workflow. The token remains valid through lookup, preview and the permitted transaction. Placeholder tokens are invalid. A routeToken does not bypass preview or explicit-confirmation requirements. A call without confirmWrite: true returns confirmation_required and a payload preview. confirmWrite: true applies the previewed change after explicit confirmation. Passing preflight is not confirmation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payloadYesRaw BRC-compatible payload for this endpoint.
routeTokenYesOpaque routeToken from brc_route_request for this action workflow. Required for transactional tools. Routing permission only — does not replace preview-before-posting or confirmWrite.
companyNameYesCompany context name, for example YOUR-COMPANY-NAME.
confirmWriteNoMust be true only after a plain-English preview before posting has been shown in the current conversation and the user explicitly confirmed posting (for example yes, create it / post it now / confirm). Never set true on the first call or because the user initially asked to create something. Nothing is written to Big Red Cloud until you confirm.
connectionRefNoOpaque Red connection reference returned by brc_confirm_company_connection. Pass this exact value on every later tool call when the MCP client rotates session ids (for example Vibe/Mistral). Keep reusing the same connectionRef after successful tool calls — do not start a new connection because a lookup returned empty or partial data. It is not an API key and does not contain credentials.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / routeToken
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Opaque routeToken from brc_route_request for this action workflow. Required for transactional tools. Routing permission only — does not replace preview-before-posting or confirmWrite.",
      +  "minLength": 1,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "companyName",
      -  "payload"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "companyName",
      +  "payload",
      +  "routeToken"
      +]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / routeToken
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Opaque routeToken from brc_route_request for this action workflow. Required for transactional tools. Routing permission only — does not replace preview-before-posting or confirmWrite.",
      -  "minLength": 1,
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "companyName",
      -  "payload",
      -  "routeToken"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "companyName",
      +  "payload"
      +]
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / routeToken
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Opaque routeToken from brc_route_request for this action workflow. Required for transactional tools. Routing permission only — does not replace preview-before-posting or confirmWrite.",
      +  "minLength": 1,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "companyName",
      -  "payload"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "companyName",
      +  "payload",
      +  "routeToken"
      +]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses routeToken lifecycle, invalid placeholder tokens, no bypass of preview requirements, the confirmation_required first-call behavior, that confirmWrite applies the previewed change, and that opening-balance fields are not posted. There are no contradictions with the annotations.

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?

Dense but well-organized: function first, then prerequisites and the confirmation workflow. Each sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact with no filler or redundant surface-level detail.

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?

Very complete for a complex transactional tool with no output schema: covers routeToken, preview, confirmWrite, and the confirmation_required return case. It does not describe the final success response or explicitly route to batch/update siblings, but the essential invocation contract is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial meaning for the opaque payload parameter: explicit code and name fields, optional fields omitted when absent, and opening-balance fields not posted. It also reinforces routeToken and confirmWrite semantics, materially improving call correctness.

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 action and resource: creates a BRC customer. It narrows the operation by noting explicit code and name fields and that opening-balance fields are not posted, clearly separating creation from update or batch alternatives.

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?

Provides strong operational context: requires a routeToken from the matching workflow, preview before posting, confirmWrite behavior, and no write until explicit confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it is clear context without full sibling routing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.