Red by Big Red Cloud

Update Sales Invoice

brc_update_sales_invoice

Destructive

Updates a sales invoice. Supplied monetary changes must be explicit and reconciled. 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	Sales invoice id.
`note`	No	Optional. BRC "Note" field on the sales document (JSON field `note`). Leave blank to default it to the customer name (BRC customer "Name" / JSON `name`). Do not use the product name as the note. Only set this when the user explicitly provides a note.
`total`	No
`details`	No
`procDate`	No	Processing date. Historical dates are permitted as an attempted update; BRC may accept or reject them.
`totalNet`	No
`totalVAT`	No
`entryDate`	No	Entry date. Historical dates are permitted as an attempted update; BRC may accept or reject them.
`reference`	No	Optional. BRC "Reference" field (JSON field `reference`). BRC "Our Ref" (JSON `ourReference`) and BRC "Your Ref" (JSON `yourReference`) default to this value when not supplied separately.
`saleRepId`	No
`vatTypeId`	No
`customerId`	No
`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.
`confirmWrite`	No	Must 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.
`ourReference`	No
`productTrans`	No	Complete BRC productTrans collection. Use this when changing invoice lines, quantities, unit prices, VAT or line amounts.
`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.
`yourReference`	No
`bookTranTypeId`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint true and readOnly false, and the description adds essential context: token validity through lookup/preview/transaction, invalid placeholder tokens, no bypass of preview/confirmation requirements, and the exact response behavior for a call without confirmWrite. 'Passing preflight is not confirmation' is a valuable guard against premature writes.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, token constraints, monetary reconciliation, and confirmation semantics are all loaded early. There is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 destructive 20-parameter transaction tool with no output schema, the description covers the crucial workflow—routeToken, preview, and explicit confirmation—and mentions the confirmation_required response. It is still not fully complete because it does not describe the success response or broader error cases, and it leaves some parameter semantics to the schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema documents half of the 20 parameters, and the description adds only a general constraint that supplied monetary changes must be explicit and reconciled. It reinforces routeToken and confirmWrite semantics but does not explain undocumented fields such as details, bookTranTypeId, or saleRepId, leaving the schema to carry most parameter meaning.

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?

Opens with 'Updates a sales invoice,' a specific verb and resource that immediately distinguishes it from create/get/list/delete invoice siblings. The rest of the description reinforces the update workflow rather than blurring the purpose.

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?

Clearly states the required routeToken workflow and the preview-then-confirm pattern: without confirmWrite:true the call returns confirmation_required, and confirmWrite:true only applies after explicit confirmation. It does not name alternatives such as brc_create_sales_invoice or brc_delete_sales_invoice, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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 Sales Invoice

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources