Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud

Update Quote

brc_update_quote
Destructive

Updates a BRC quote's manual reference only. Quote.note is not persisted by this update and is not accepted here. Loads the current quote, preserves all other fields (including timestamp, product lines, analysis entries, totals, customer, sales rep, dates, comments, and closed state), applies the new reference, then PUTs the full record. Manual quote references must be 6 characters or fewer because Big Red Cloud truncates longer references. 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
idYesQuote id.
referenceNoOptional manual quote reference, max 6 characters. Required when quote references are manual, or when the quote reference setting is unknown. Quote reference must be 6 characters or fewer because Big Red Cloud truncates longer references.
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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description richly complements them: it discloses the read-modify-write behavior (loads current quote, preserves all fields, PUTs full record), the 6-character truncation behavior in Big Red Cloud, routeToken validity nuances (placeholder tokens invalid), and the exact confirmation semantics including the confirmation_required response. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: scope, field exclusions, preservation behavior, truncation rationale, token lifecycle, and confirmation flow. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into constraints. Slightly dense, but the complexity of the confirmation workflow justifies the length.

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 mutating tool with a complex two-phase confirmation flow and no output schema, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: what changes, what is preserved, token requirements, confirmation semantics, and the failure/retry path (confirmation_required with payload preview). The only minor gap is the absence of any description of the success response shape.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains why references are capped at 6 characters (truncation), clarifies that reference is the only mutable field, and sharpens confirmWrite semantics with 'Passing preflight is not confirmation' — all beyond what the schema properties state.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource with a precise scope: 'Updates a BRC quote's manual reference only.' It further distinguishes the tool by naming what it explicitly does not accept ('Quote.note is not persisted by this update'), which cleanly separates it from the broader brc_update_* family and quote lifecycle siblings.

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 workflow-level guidance on when the tool can be invoked: a valid routeToken from the matching action workflow, token validity spanning lookup/preview/transaction, and the confirmWrite requirement for actual posting. It clearly states when-not-to-call ('Passing preflight is not confirmation'), though it never names alternative tools explicitly for other update scenarios.

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