Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud

Create Sales Credit Note with Generated Reference

brc_create_sales_credit_note_gen_ref
Destructive

Creates a sales credit note using generated references and reconciled negative document amounts. 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. Requires confirmCounterpartyExplicit: true; confirmation is scoped to the counterparty selected for the current preview.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payloadYes
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.
confirmCrAnalysisCategoryNoSet true only after the user confirms a CR sales analysis account code is intentional for this product line.
confirmCounterpartyExplicitNoMust be true only after the user explicitly named or confirmed the customer, supplier, or other counterparty in the current conversation. Never set true because a customer or supplier appeared in an earlier preview, was inferred from context, or was filled in without the user's explicit choice in this conversation.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say destructive/non-read-only; the description adds the routeToken lifecycle, placeholder invalidity, confirmation_required return behavior, preview application semantics, and the rule that preflight is not confirmation. This significantly exceeds annotation coverage and contains no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Seven sentences, all substantive and front-loaded with purpose then token and confirmation behavior. It is dense but appropriately so for a destructive transactional tool; a little tightening of repeated confirmation concepts would push it higher.

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 complex transactional tool with nested payload and no output schema, it covers token lifecycle, write barier, confirmation flow, and counterparty scoping unusually well. It does not explain payload construction or the success return shape, but the routeToken workflow implies the payload comes from earlier stages, so the gap is tolerable.

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 high (86%) and the schema already documents routeToken, confirmWrite, connectionRef, and confirmCounterpartyExplicit in detail. The description adds workflow-level meaning by tying these parameters to stages (lookup, preview, transaction) and clarifying confirmation_required outputs, which is valuable but not a full replacement for per-parameter detail.

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?

Names a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('sales credit note'), and adds the distinguishing traits 'generated references' and 'reconciled negative document amounts.' This makes it identifiable against sibling tools like brc_create_sales_credit_note even though that sibling isn't explicitly referenced.

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 an explicit operational workflow: valid routeToken required, preview and explicit confirmation not bypassable, confirmWrite true semantics, preflight-vs-confirmation distinction, and confirmCounterpartyExplicit. It does not name the alternative non-gen_ref credit note tool or state when to choose it, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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