Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud

Update Nominal Journal Batch

brc_update_nominal_journal_batch
Destructive

Updates a nominal journal batch using its current concurrency timestamps. 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
idYesNominal Journal Batch id.
totalYes
procDateYesDate/time string, for example 2024-01-15T00:00:00.
entryDateYesDate/time string, for example 2024-01-15T00:00:00.
timestampYesBase64 timestamp for the nominal journal batch.
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 the user explicitly confirms updating this Nominal Journal Batch.
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.
bookTranTypeIdNoBook transaction type id. Nominal Journal Batch is usually 7.
accountTransactionsYesUpdated nominal journal account transaction lines.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the confirmation mechanism: calls without confirmWrite return confirmation_required with a payload preview, confirmWrite applies the previewed change, and passing preflight does not count as confirmation. It also clarifies routeToken limitations and placeholder-token invalidity, giving agents a precise model of how the mutation behaves.

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 a compact set of sentences with no filler. Every sentence earns its place: core action, token requirement, token validity, invalid tokens, confirmation semantics, and the preflight caveat. The critical workflow information is front-loaded.

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 transactional tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: token validity, preview, and confirmation. It could be slightly more explicit about ordering relative to brc_get_nominal_journal_batch and brc_route_request, but the schema's routeToken reference to brc_route_request and the strong description of the confirm flow make the tool adequately complete.

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 coverage is high at 91%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavioral semantics beyond the schema by explaining that timestamps must be current concurrency values, routeToken validity is workflow-scoped, and confirmWrite controls the confirmation phase. This supplements, rather than repeats, the already detailed 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 description opens with the specific verb 'Updates' and the exact resource 'nominal journal batch', and adds the key qualifier 'using its current concurrency timestamps'. This distinguishes it clearly from create, delete, get, and list sibling tools targeted at the same resource.

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 provides strong usage context: a valid routeToken is required, token validity is scoped to lookup/preview/transaction, and the two-phase confirmWrite workflow is explained. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as brc_create_nominal_journal_batch or brc_get_nominal_journal_batch, but the prerequisites and workflow are clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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