Skip to main content
Glama

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYes
memoNo
notesNoA 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.
amountYes
currencyNo
inputTaxNo
referenceNo
needsReviewNo
shoeboxItemIdNoThe 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.
amountUncertainNo
attachmentBytesNoThe 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.
attachmentTokenNoThe 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.
attachmentBase64NoThe 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.
attachmentSha256NoThe SHA-256 of the ORIGINAL file as 64 hex chars — optional second check alongside attachmentBase64, so corrupted bytes are rejected instead of filed.
debitAccountCodeYes
creditAccountCodeYes
attachmentFilenameNoOptional original filename for the attachment, e.g. receipt.jpg.
attachmentMediaTypeNoThe attachment's MIME type, e.g. 'image/jpeg' or 'application/pdf'. Required when attachmentBase64 is given.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
      +}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the minimal annotations, the description discloses key side effects and constraints: no ledger posting until approval, automatic attachment propagation, shoebox item refusal if already booked/pending, and rejection of truncated or bad-type uploads. It also explains the sandboxed network fallback for inline uploads.

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 information is front-loaded with purpose and primary behavior, then flows from field shaping to flags to attachment modes. It is dense and occasionally repeats the 'lands on the posted entry' benefit, but every major decision rule earns its place for an 18-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex create tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the full life cycle: draft creation, review flags, shoebox linkage, attachment handling, and network fallback. An agent has enough context to select it and invoke the correct attachment path without further tool exploration.

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 only 44%, but the description compensates for the tricky parameters: amountUncertain, needsReview/notes, attachmentBase64/attachmentBytes/attachmentToken, and shoeboxItemId mutual exclusivity. A few required fields (date, amount, account codes) are left to the referenced intake_contract/expense_accounts workflow rather than explained inline, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 names a specific verb ('File'), target (Taokeh), scope (a paid-expense DRAFT), and source ('from a receipt you've read'). It immediately distinguishes the tool from posting to the books by explaining it creates a pending user-reviewed draft, which differentiates it from ledger-posting and other draft siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit directions: use intake_contract + expense_accounts first, set amountUncertain only when digits are uncertain, set needsReview for other doubts, and choose attachments by size/network conditions ('Small files... inline', 'Anything bigger: request_attachment_upload'). The shoeboxItemId branch and 'never both' exclusion also state exactly when not to send an image.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources