Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update Cash Receipt

brc_update_cash_receipt
Destructive

Updates a BRC cash receipt using merged fields. 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 receipt id.
payloadNoAlias for updates.
updatesNoFields to merge into the existing record.
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.

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses the preflight requirement, the exact behavior of a call without confirmWrite, that confirmWrite:true applies the previewed change, and that routeToken does not bypass confirmation. It also clarifies token validity and placeholder invalidity, which is substantial non-obvious behavioral context.

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 carries operational information: purpose, token constraints, preflight behavior, and the confirmation requirement. There is no filler, and the critical confirmation rule is front-loaded before deeper 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?

For a complex two-phase confirm-flow update tool with no output schema, the description covers the token lifecycle, the confirmation_required response, and the condition for actually writing. Parameter details are fully handled by the 100% covered schema, so an agent has what it needs to invoke this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by defining 'merged fields' for payload/updates and clarifying routeToken validity through lookup, preview, and transaction, plus the invalidity of placeholder tokens. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 opening sentence names a specific action (updates), a specific resource (BRC cash receipt), and the mechanism (merged fields). This clearly separates it from create/delete/list siblings and from update tools for other record types.

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 spells out the required workflow: a valid routeToken from the matching action workflow, lookup/preview, then confirmWrite after explicit confirmation. It gives clear context but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, such as using brc_create_cash_receipt for new records.

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