Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete Cash Payment

brc_delete_cash_payment
Destructive

Deletes a BRC cash payment by id. 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
idYescash payment id.
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.
confirmDeleteNo
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"
-]New value: +[
+  "companyName",
+  "id",
+  "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",
-  "routeToken"
-]New value: +[
+  "companyName",
+  "id"
+]
  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"
-]New value: +[
+  "companyName",
+  "id",
+  "routeToken"
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description reveals the full two-phase behavior: a call without confirmWrite:true returns confirmation_required with a payload preview, confirmWrite:true applies the previewed change only after explicit confirmation, passing preflight is not confirmation, and tokens stay valid through lookup/preview/transaction. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance annotations cannot convey.

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?

Seven sentences, every one carrying information — core action first, then token lifecycle, then the confirmation gate. Dense but warranted for a destructive transactional tool with a preview-before-posting workflow; zero filler.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: token requirements, invalidity conditions, preview obligation, and the confirmation semantics. The one real hole is confirmDelete, a parameter present in the schema with only a default and no explanation in either schema or description.

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 (83%), and the description adds real semantic value on top for the two most critical parameters: routeToken (placeholder tokens invalid, validity window across the workflow) and confirmWrite (what happens with and without true). The notable gap is confirmDelete, which has no schema description and is never mentioned in the tool description, leaving its relationship to confirmWrite ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence states a specific verb, resource, and key ('Deletes a BRC cash payment by id'), making the core action unambiguous. However, it never explicitly differentiates from sibling delete tools such as brc_delete_cash_receipt or brc_delete_payment; the resource name 'BRC cash payment' does that work only implicitly.

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 clear conditions for valid use: a valid routeToken issued for the matching action workflow, placeholder tokens rejected, and confirmation after a plain-English preview. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions ('use X instead when...'), but the prerequisite context is concrete and actionable.

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