Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud

Process VAT Category Rates

brc_process_vat_category_rates
Destructive

Processes VAT rates for VAT categories via POST /v1/vatCategories/vatRates. Requires a full vatCategoryRates array and confirmProcess=true. 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
payloadNoDeprecated. Use vatCategoryRates instead of a raw payload object.
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.
effectiveDateNoNot a valid standalone payload. Use vatCategoryRates instead.
confirmProcessNo
vatCategoryRatesNoFull BRC payload array for POST /v1/vatCategories/vatRates, e.g. [{ vatCategoryId: 1, vatRates: [...] }].

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description expands on the safety/confirmation behavior: token validity through lookup/preview/transaction, no write without explicit confirmation, confirmation_required and payload preview when confirmWrite is omitted, and confirmWrite applying the previewed change. The confirmProcess/confirmWrite distinction is slightly muddled, but the overall behavioral disclosure is strong.

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 action and endpoint, and each subsequent sentence contributes workflow or safety information. It is dense rather than bloated, though the two confirmation flags (confirmProcess vs confirmWrite) and the 'preflight' reference could have been separated more explicitly.

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 8-parameter, nested-object, destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, token behavior, preview/confirmation flow, and the likely confirmation_required response. The main gap is the exact relationship between confirmProcess and confirmWrite, but the overall definition is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 high (88%), so the baseline is 3, and the description still adds meaning beyond the schema: it explicitly requires a full vatCategoryRates array and confirmProcess=true, clarifies routeToken validity and that routeToken does not bypass preview/confirmation, and explains the confirmWrite gate. Remaining params like connectionRef and companyName are already well documented in the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource being acted on (VAT rates for VAT categories) and the exact endpoint (POST /v1/vatCategories/vatRates), and the 'Processes' verb plus confirmation semantics distinguish it from the many list/update tools. It is slightly generic about whether this creates or updates rates, but the endpoint and workflow make the intent reasonably clear.

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 workflow context: it requires a full vatCategoryRates array, confirmProcess=true, a valid routeToken for the matching action, a preview before posting, and explicit user confirmation before confirmWrite:true. It also gives explicit don'ts, such as placeholder tokens being invalid and preflight not counting as confirmation, though it does not name sibling alternatives.

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