Red by Big Red Cloud

Update Accrual

brc_update_accrual

Destructive

Updates 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

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Parent accrual id.
`total`	Yes	Accrual total amount.
`acCode`	Yes	Nominal account code, for example 4000.
`procDate`	Yes	Processing date, for example 2024-03-15T00:00:00.
`entryDate`	Yes	Entry date, for example 2024-03-01T00:00:00.
`reference`	Yes	Accrual reference, for example ACC0001.
`timestamp`	Yes	Base64 timestamp returned by the accrual, for example K94UQIbL3gg=.
`routeToken`	Yes	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.
`companyName`	Yes	Company context name, for example YOUR-COMPANY-NAME.
`firstDetail`	No	First detail text.
`confirmWrite`	No	Must be true only after the user explicitly confirms updating this accrual.
`secondDetail`	No	Second detail text.
`connectionRef`	No	Opaque 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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description explains the two-phase confirmWrite behavior, what happens without confirmWrite, that preflight is not confirmation, and that placeholder tokens are invalid. This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent avoid unsafe calls.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description front-loads the core action, then covers token requirements and confirmation semantics without filler or repetition of schema-only details.

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 the dangerous mutation, 13 parameters, 9 required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the critical interaction flow: token acquisition, preview behavior, confirmation, and the confirmation_required response. Nothing essential for safe invocation is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema for the tricky parameters: timestamp is framed as a concurrency control value, routeToken's lifecycle and limitations are clarified, and confirmWrite's exact call behavior is specified. This goes well above the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Updates an accrual using its current concurrency timestamp.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling create/delete/get accrual tools by emphasizing concurrency control and the routeToken workflow.

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 explicit preconditions: a valid routeToken for the matching workflow, the token's validity window, and the requirement for explicit confirmation via confirmWrite. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 tools Inspect

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.

Update Accrual

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources