Skip to main content
Glama

Taokeh MCP server

File a pending supplier-payment draft (human approves in Taokeh)

create_payment_draft

FILES A PENDING DRAFT ONLY — NOTHING CHANGES UNTIL A HUMAN REVIEWS AND APPROVES IT IN TAOKEH. File a SUPPLIER-PAYMENT draft ("we paid Ah Seng RM5,000 from Maybank on Tuesday against bills 12 and 14"). This does NOT post: only the owner's approval writes a real bank payment and settles the bills, and when it does, accounts payable and the bank move exactly as they would if the owner had matched the line in Banking. A payment settles an EXISTING supplier's open bills: resolve the supplier (resolve_vendor) and see what is owed (ap_aging, search_documents) first, then give EITHER a lump total (auto-allocated oldest-first) OR explicit per-bill allocations. PREFER purchaseId over reference in an allocation: a supplier's own bill number is NOT unique in Taokeh, so a reference that matches two open bills is refused naming both rather than guessed. MYR only — a foreign-currency bill is refused and routes to Banking → Match, which handles the exchange difference. Amounts are RINGGIT, the same figures ap_aging and search_documents show you — never sen, never a foreign figure converted by you. A CREDIT CARD can't be the paying account here: paying a supplier on a card is a spend that arrives on the card's own statement — import that statement instead. IF THIS COMPANY IMPORTS BANK STATEMENTS and the payment is already sitting on an imported line, do NOT file here — propose the allocation on that line with draft_bank_classification. Filing it here would put the same money in Taokeh twice, and the server refuses when it can see the imported line. The server re-derives the allocation against live outstanding at create AND at approval, so its figures are authoritative and a bill settled in the meantime makes the draft refuse rather than over-pay. Set needsReview and add a SHORT reviewer note in notes (one or two sentences naming what to double-check — not lengthy reasoning) for any doubt. Filed it wrong? Use revise_draft (kind: 'payment') rather than filing a second one. If you have the payment proof (transfer slip, remittance advice), attach the original document you extracted from — the owner sees it beside the draft at review (s.82 record-keeping) and it lands on the settlement entry automatically on approval. Small files: 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
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 supplier 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.
totalNoA lump ringgit amount to auto-allocate oldest-first across the supplier’s open bills. Give this OR explicit allocations — never both.
vendorNoThe supplier name, resolved with resolve_vendor first. A payment settles an EXISTING supplier's bills and can never create a supplier.
vendorIdNoThe resolved vendor id, instead of the name.
allocationsNoThe explicit per-bill split, at most 50 lines. Each amount is capped at that bill’s live outstanding by the server.
needsReviewNo
paymentDateYes
printedTotalNoThe total printed on the payment advice, if any. Cross-check only — the server computes the real total and flags a mismatch on the approval screen.
bankAccountIdNoThe PAYING bank/cash account (from intake_contract(doc_type:'payment') → payingAccounts). Optional — omit it and the reviewer picks at approval. A credit-card account is refused by name.
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 settlement entry on approval, exactly as an inline one does.
attachmentBase64NoThe ORIGINAL payment proof (transfer slip / remittance advice) as base64 — SMALL files only (a few KB). For a real photo or multi-page PDF use request_attachment_upload instead (attachmentToken). Rides the draft and lands on the settlement 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.
attachmentFilenameNoOptional original filename for the attachment, e.g. transfer-slip.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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / allocations / description
      Previous value: -"The explicit per-bill split. Each amount is capped at that bill’s live outstanding by the server."New value: +"The explicit per-bill split, at most 50 lines. Each amount is capped at that bill’s live outstanding by the server."
    • addedInput schema / properties / allocations / maxItems
      Added value: +50
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining that the draft does NOT post until the owner approves, that the server re-derives allocations at create and approval time, that duplicate imported-line filings are refused, and that truncated attachments are rejected. These are critical behavioral details that the sparse annotations do not convey, and there is no contradiction with the 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 front-loaded with the most important safety constraint and nearly every sentence carries functional value. However, it is a dense wall of text with heavy all-caps and long parenthetical asides, which makes parsing harder than necessary; it could be tightened or structured without losing information.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, allocation rules, currency constraints, credit-card exclusions, the imported-statement duplicate risk, attachment mechanics, review notes, error handling, and what happens at approval. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is already high at 87%, the description adds substantial meaning to parameters: purchaseId should be preferred over reference because supplier bill numbers are not unique, total and allocations are mutually exclusive, attachmentBytes detects truncated base64, and notes should carry only a short reviewer flag. This materially improves correct invocation beyond the raw schema.

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 verb and resource: 'FILES A PENDING DRAFT ONLY' and 'File a SUPPLIER-PAYMENT draft'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many create_* siblings and from draft_bank_classification by stating exactly what kind of draft it files and that human approval is required before anything posts.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and thorough. It names concrete alternatives and their trigger conditions: use draft_bank_classification if the payment is already on an imported bank line, use revise_draft if filed wrong, and route foreign-currency or credit-card cases elsewhere. It also prescribes prerequisites like resolve_vendor, ap_aging, and search_documents before filing.

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