Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud

Update Sales Representative

brc_update_sales_rep
Destructive

Updates a BRC sales rep using structured MCP 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
idYesSales rep id.
codeNo
nameNo
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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses critical behavior: routeToken validity and lifecycle, that placeholders are invalid, that routeToken does not bypass preview/confirmation, and that a call without confirmWrite: true yields confirmation_required plus a payload preview. It also clarifies that passing preflight is not confirmation. This is exactly the kind of safety-critical operational context an agent needs.

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 requirement, token validity, invalid placeholders, preview/confirmation behavior, and the confirmation response contract. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and ordered logically.

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, token-gated, confirmation-gated write operation, the description covers the full pre-flight and confirmation flow well. It stipulates the no-confirm response and that confirmWrite: true applies the previewed change. It could go further by indicating the response after a successfull confirmed write, but the absence of an output schema and the clear mutation outcome keep this a minor gap.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover routeToken, companyName, confirmWrite, and connectionRef in detail, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds value with routeToken lifecycle semantics and the precise meaning of confirmWrite: true vs absent/false. The only gap is that code and name lack schema descriptions and the description does not explicitly address them, but their purpose is clear from the tool name and the 'sales rep' resource.

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 action and target: 'Updates a BRC sales rep.' This clearly distinguishes it from create/delete/list variants and from the large family of update_* tools by naming the exact 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 clearly states the prerequisite routeToken and the required confirmation workflow, and it explains when confirmation_required is returned. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the action/resource pairing is sufficient to route an agent away from create, delete, or other update tools.

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