Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud

List Quotes

brc_list_quotes
Read-only

Lists BRC quotes. List and get may not return the same fields (for example note or analysis account codes); treat those as representation differences, not as create or update failures. Quote references are not necessarily unique — identify a quote by id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNo
pageNo
skipNo
filterNoOptional OData $filter expression, only if this endpoint supports filtering.
orderByNoOptional OData $orderby expression, only if this endpoint supports ordering.
pageSizeNo
companyNameYesCompany context name, for example YOUR-COMPANY-NAME.
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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description flags two important behaviors: list and get may return different fields, and quote references are not unique. This helps the agent avoid misinterpreting representation differences as failures and makes the id-based lookup advice actionable.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with a crisp one-sentence statement of purpose, followed by two high-value caveats. Every sentence contributes useful context with no filler.

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 captures the most surprising API behavior and makes the callable first steps clear, but it does not describe the returned fields, pagination defaults, or how results are structured. Given that there is no output schema, this leaves some important context unresolved for an agent that must interpret results.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters like top, page, skip, filter, orderBy, and pageSize, but it does not mention them. The quote-reference comment relates to data semantics rather than parameter meaning.

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 description opens with 'Lists BRC quotes', a specific verb and resource that immediately identifies the operation. It also distinguishes list behavior from get behavior via the field-mismatch warning, though it does not explicitly differentiate this from the similar brc_list_customer_quotes sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over brc_list_customer_quotes or brc_get_quote, and no mention of scenarios that call for pagination. The list-vs-get caveat is useful but is more about interpretation than decision-making about which tool to invoke.

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