Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete Accrual

brc_delete_accrual
Destructive

Deletes an accrual using its current concurrency timestamp. 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
idYesParent accrual id.
timestampYesBase64 timestamp returned by the accrual, for example K94UQIbL3gg=.
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 deleting this accrual.
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",
-  "id",
-  "timestamp"
-]New value: +[
+  "companyName",
+  "id",
+  "timestamp",
+  "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",
-  "id",
-  "timestamp",
-  "routeToken"
-]New value: +[
+  "companyName",
+  "id",
+  "timestamp"
+]
  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",
-  "id",
-  "timestamp"
-]New value: +[
+  "companyName",
+  "id",
+  "timestamp",
+  "routeToken"
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: routeToken validity scope, placeholder token invalidity, the non-bypass of preview/confirmation, and the exact confirmation_required + preview response when confirmWrite is omitted. This is especially valuable because the tool is destructive and the description clarifies the safety flow.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then provides sequenced workflow details. It is somewhat dense and repeats the confirmation theme a couple of times, but overall each sentence contributes meaningful information for a destructive transactional tool.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and a destructive operation, this description covers the essential workflow: obtaining/using a routeToken, previewing, explicit confirmation via confirmWrite, and the consequence of not passing it. The remaining details, such as connectionRef, are adequately documented in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the timestamp (concurrency constraint), routeToken (workflow scoping and invalidity of placeholders), and confirmWrite (explicit-confirmation semantics). This goes beyond the raw schema descriptions, though it does not deeply explain every parameter.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Deletes an accrual using its current concurrency timestamp.' This clearly identifies the operation and its distinguishing requirement. It is not a tautology and is easily differentiated from get/update/list accrual 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?

The description gives strong contextual usage guidance: it requires a routeToken, a confirmWrite: true after explicit user confirmation, and explains that preflight is not confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, but the transactional workflow is 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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources