Taokeh MCP server

File expense draft

create_expense_draft

File a paid-expense DRAFT into Taokeh from a receipt you've read. This does NOT post to the books — it creates a pending draft the user reviews and approves in Taokeh; only then does it hit the ledger. Shape the fields with intake_contract + expense_accounts first. Set amountUncertain when any digit of the printed total is uncertain; set needsReview and add a SHORT reviewer note in notes (one or two sentences naming what the human should double-check — not lengthy reasoning) for any other doubt. If you have the ORIGINAL receipt image/PDF, attach it — it rides the draft and lands on the posted entry automatically on approval, so the user never has to re-upload it. Small files: pass attachmentBase64 + attachmentMediaType inline. Send attachmentBytes (the original file’s decoded size) with it so a truncated base64 is rejected instead of filed. Anything bigger: request_attachment_upload → PUT the bytes → pass the returned attachmentToken — unless your shell cannot reach taokeh.my (a sandboxed client behind a network allowlist), in which case inline it anyway, with attachmentBytes; never both.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes
`memo`	No
`notes`	No	A SHORT reviewer note: one or two plain sentences, written in the reviewer's language, flagging what the human should double-check before approving — a smudged or ambiguous total, a vendor/customer you weren't sure of, a judgment call you made. The reviewer reads this on a small approval card, so keep it brief and human. This is NOT a place to dump lengthy reasoning, your working, or boilerplate — just the one thing to check. Leave it empty when there is nothing to flag.
`amount`	Yes
`currency`	No
`inputTax`	No
`reference`	No
`needsReview`	No
`shoeboxItemId`	No	The id of a SHOEBOX photo (from shoebox_items) that this draft was read from — the paper someone in the business snapped and sent in. Taokeh attaches ITS OWN stored copy of that photo to the draft, so DO NOT also send the image: no re-upload, no base64, nothing to truncate. Mutually exclusive with attachmentBase64 and attachmentToken. The item must still be waiting: one already booked, set aside, or already carrying a pending draft is refused with the reason. Approving the draft closes that shoebox item against the document it became.
`amountUncertain`	No
`attachmentBytes`	No	The decoded byte size of the ORIGINAL file on disk — send it alongside attachmentBase64 and the server rejects a truncated paste instead of filing a corrupt file.
`attachmentToken`	No	The token from request_attachment_upload, AFTER you have PUT the file bytes to its uploadUrl. Use this instead of attachmentBase64 for any real photo/PDF — it carries the file out-of-band (no base64 in this call). Mutually exclusive with attachmentBase64. The uploaded file rides the draft and lands on the posted entry on approval, exactly as an inline one does.
`attachmentBase64`	No	The ORIGINAL receipt as base64 — SMALL files only (a few KB). Base64 inside a tool call is costly, so for a real receipt photo or a multi-page PDF use request_attachment_upload instead (attachmentToken). Rides the draft and lands on the posted entry on approval — no re-upload. A bad type/oversize file is rejected and NOTHING is filed.
`attachmentSha256`	No	The SHA-256 of the ORIGINAL file as 64 hex chars — optional second check alongside attachmentBase64, so corrupted bytes are rejected instead of filed.
`debitAccountCode`	Yes
`creditAccountCode`	Yes
`attachmentFilename`	No	Optional original filename for the attachment, e.g. receipt.jpg.
`attachmentMediaType`	No	The attachment's MIME type, e.g. 'image/jpeg' or 'application/pdf'. Required when attachmentBase64 is given. It must match the file's bytes — a mismatch is refused and nothing is filed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 18, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / attachmentMediaType / description

Previous value: -"The attachment's MIME type, e.g. 'image/jpeg' or 'application/pdf'. Required when attachmentBase64 is given."New value: +"The attachment's MIME type, e.g. 'image/jpeg' or 'application/pdf'. Required when attachmentBase64 is given. It must match the file's bytes — a mismatch is refused and nothing is filed."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / shoeboxItemId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The id of a SHOEBOX photo (from shoebox_items) that this draft was read from — the paper someone in the business snapped and sent in. Taokeh attaches ITS OWN stored copy of that photo to the draft, so DO NOT also send the image: no re-upload, no base64, nothing to truncate. Mutually exclusive with attachmentBase64 and attachmentToken. The item must still be waiting: one already booked, set aside, or already carrying a pending draft is refused with the reason. Approving the draft closes that shoebox item against the document it became.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / attachmentBytes

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The decoded byte size of the ORIGINAL file on disk — send it alongside attachmentBase64 and the server rejects a truncated paste instead of filing a corrupt file.",
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / attachmentSha256

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The SHA-256 of the ORIGINAL file as 64 hex chars — optional second check alongside attachmentBase64, so corrupted bytes are rejected instead of filed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedAug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world, but the description goes well beyond: it describes the draft→approval→posted lifecycle, that the attachment 'lands on the posted entry automatically on approval', refusal behavior (truncated base64, mismatched MIME type, shoebox item already booked or carrying a pending draft), and mutual-exclusivity rules ('never both'). This is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded correctly — purpose and the critical non-posting caveat come first, with operating instructions after. It is long, and the final sentence stacking the token flow, the sandbox-allowlist exception and 'never both' is dense, but nearly every sentence carries distinct operational content rather than filler.

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 an 18-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the genuinely hard parts — attachment ingestion, review flags, shoebox state constraints, and validation failure modes. The residual gaps are the plain fields (date, currency, inputTax, reference, account codes) that an agent would still be guessing at.

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?

Schema coverage is only 44% across 18 params, so the description must compensate. It does explain amountUncertain, needsReview, notes intent, and the three attachment-parameter paths in useful detail, but date, memo, currency, inputTax, reference, debitAccountCode, and creditAccountCode remain undocumented in both places (account codes are only indirectly pointed at via expense_accounts). Partial compensation for a sizeable gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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 ('File a paid-expense DRAFT into Taokeh from a receipt you've read') and immediately clarifies the non-effect ('does NOT post to the books'). It cleanly separates itself from posting/ledger tools, though it never names a create_*_draft sibling (e.g. create_receipt_draft or create_bill_draft) as an alternative, so same-family disambiguation is left to inference.

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?

Strong operational guidance: 'Shape the fields with intake_contract + expense_accounts first', explicit conditions for amountUncertain and needsReview, and a decision path for attachments (inline base64 for small files vs request_attachment_upload → attachmentToken for real photos/PDFs). It stops short of saying when to choose this tool over create_bill_draft/create_receipt_draft for a given document, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Taokeh MCP server tools Inspect

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

Need Help?