Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud

Create Nominal Journal Batch

brc_create_nominal_journal_batch
Destructive

Creates a nominal journal batch after returning an unconfirmed payload preview. 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
totalYesTotal journal amount.
procDateYesProcessing date, for example 2024-01-15T00:00:00.
entryDateYesEntry date, for example 2024-01-15T00:00:00.
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 the user explicitly confirms creating this Nominal Journal Batch.
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.
bookTranTypeIdNoBook transaction type id. Nominal Journal Batch is usually 7.
accountTransactionsYesNominal journal account transaction lines. Debits and credits should balance.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the critical two-phase confirmation behavior, routeToken lifecycle, invalidity of placeholder tokens, and the fact that preflight is not confirmation. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool.

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?

Every sentence contributes a distinct constraint or behavior. The description is about seven sentences long for a complex transactional workflow and does not waste words on obvious boilerplate. The key purpose and confirmation model are front-loaded.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious workflow fully: token requirements, preview semantics, confirmation, and what cla call without confirmWrite returns. Minor gaps: it does not explicitly mention the balance requirement or the effect of accountTransactions validation, but the schema already documents those. Overall sufficient for an agent to safely call the tool.

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?

The schema already covers all 9 parameters (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter interplay: routeToken remains valid through the workflow, confirmWrite toggles preview vs apply, and placeholder tokens are invalid. This goes beyond individual field descriptions.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Creates a nominal journal batch') and adds the distinguishing behavior: it returns an unconfirmed payload preview before committing. This is unique among the substantial sibling list and an agent can clearly separate it from list/update/delete nominal-journal tools.

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 clear execution conditions: a valid routeToken from the matching action workflow, a preview step, and an explicit confirmWrite: true before persisting. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the usage workflow is specific enough that an agent knows where it fits among create/update/delete siblings.

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

All Red by Big Red Cloud toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have a clear single resource-and-action focus, and the systematic naming helps an agent separate create/get/update/delete/list operations. The main confusion risks are the help/search cluster (red_help, find_help_resources, get_help_resource_details) and the payment/cash-payment/batch-payment variants, which require careful reading of the descriptions to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The brc_ prefix with snake_case verb_noun naming is used consistently across the vast majority of tools, e.g. brc_list_customers, brc_create_sales_invoice, brc_delete_purchase. A few noun-style names like brc_company_readiness_check, brc_grouped_nominal_accounts_report, and brc_red_help break the pattern, but these are minor deviations.

Tool Count1/5

159 tools is an extreme count for an MCP server, well beyond the 50+ threshold described as an extreme mismatch. While the accounting domain is broad, the surface is inflated by batch variants, generated-reference variants, and without-dormant list variants that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

Core accounting entities have strong lifecycle coverage: customers, suppliers, products, sales reps, bank accounts, quotes, sales invoices/entries/credit notes, purchases, payments, cash receipts, accruals, prepayments, and nominal journal batches all support relevant CRUD and batch operations. Minor gaps include the quote update being limited to the reference only, no update/create tools for VAT categories or company settings, and email sending being limited to quotes, invoices, and statements.

Resources