Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud

Create Prepayment

brc_create_prepayment
Destructive

Creates a prepayment 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
totalYesPrepayment total amount.
acCodeYesNominal account code, for example 4000.
procDateYesProcessing date, for example 2024-03-15T00:00:00.
entryDateYesEntry date, for example 2024-03-01T00:00:00.
referenceYesPrepayment reference, for example PRE0001.
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.
firstDetailNoFirst detail text.
confirmWriteNoMust be true only after the user explicitly confirms creating this prepayment.
secondDetailNoSecond detail text.
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.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description substantially discloses behavior beyond annotations: token lifecycle through lookup/preview/transaction, placeholder token invalidity, no bypassing of preview or confirmation, confirmation_required response without confirmWrite true, and preflight not being confirmation. This is rich, accurate behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 of the description earns its place: it leads with the main purpose, then covers token validity, confirmation behavior, and the preflight pitfall. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important caveats are front-loaded.

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 complex, destructive write operation with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It explains the required workflow, the exact behavior when confirmWrite is missing, and the special constraints on routeToken and preflight. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly without additional inference.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by clarifying the two most subtle parameters. It explains that routeToken is routing permission only, remains valid through the workflow, and does not replace confirmWrite; and that confirmWrite true applies the previewed change only after explicit confirmation. This adds genuine semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Creates a prepayment' after returning a payload preview. It distinguishes this create operation from related prepayment tools like get, update, and delete by naming the exact resource and workflow. The verb and scope are unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to call this tool: a valid routeToken must be present, and an explicit confirmWrite true step is required. It also warns against placeholder tokens and preflight-as-confirmation, so an agent knows the prerequisites. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as update_prepayment, but the create-vs-update distinction is implicit and clear.

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