Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud

Delete Sales Invoice

brc_delete_sales_invoice
Destructive

Deletes a BRC sales invoice by id using timestamp confirmation. 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
idYesSales invoice 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.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say the tool is destructive and read-write. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: token lifecycle, invalid placeholder tokens, preview-before-posting requirements, the confirmation_required response without confirmWrite, and the fact that preflight is not confirmation. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action before diving into workflow requirements. Almost every sentence adds value, though the phrase 'using timestamp confirmation' is ambiguous and never tied to a schema parameter, which slightly undermines the otherwise efficient structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers authentication and the confirmation workflow well, but it omits the confirmDelete parameter entirely and does not describe what happens after a successful confirmed deletion. With no output schema, an agent is left guessing about part of the deletion contract, even though the main workflow is well explained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including detailed semantics for confirmWrite and routeToken. The description adds some token-lifecycle nuance, but it mostly reframes schema content and never addresses the undocumented confirmDelete boolean, leaving that parameter's role unclear.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a BRC sales invoice by id.' This clearly separates it from the many sibling tools for creating, updating, getting, or listing sales invoices, and from the other delete_* tools that target different resources.

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 operating conditions: a valid routeToken from the matching action workflow is required, placeholder tokens are invalid, and routeToken does not bypass preview or confirmation. It also tells the agent when not to confirm ('Passing preflight is not confirmation') and what happens without confirmWrite: true. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives, but the resource is unambiguous.

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