Skip to main content
Glama

Taokeh MCP server

File receipt draft

create_receipt_draft

File a customer-payment DRAFT into Taokeh ("customer paid X"). This does NOT post — it creates a pending draft the user reviews and approves in Taokeh; only then does it write a real bank receipt and settle the invoices. A receipt settles an EXISTING customer's open invoices: resolve the customer (resolve_customer) and see what they owe (open_invoices) first, then give EITHER a lump total (auto-allocated oldest-first) OR explicit per-invoice allocations. MYR only — a foreign-currency invoice is refused and routes to Banking → Payments. The server re-derives the allocation against live outstanding, so its figures are authoritative. 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. If you have the payment proof (bank-in 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 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.
totalNo
customerNo
customerIdNo
allocationsNo
needsReviewNo
receiptDateYes
printedTotalNo
bankAccountIdNo
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 (bank-in 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. bank-in-slip.jpg.
attachmentMediaTypeNoThe 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.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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."
  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?

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent); the description adds material behavior beyond that — it does NOT post, a human must approve before a real bank receipt is written and invoices settle, the server re-derives allocation against live outstanding, and attachments ride the draft onto the settlement entry. It also spells out the attachment path (inline vs request_attachment_upload), size/truncation rejection, and mutual exclusivity.

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-loads the core purpose and the non-posting constraint, then flows into prerequisites, currency constraint, then attachments. It is dense and somewhat long, with attachment landing-on-settlement stated twice, but almost every clause carries operational weight for a 15-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 money-moving, attachment-carrying, review-gated tool with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle (draft → review → approval → bank receipt), the prerequisite chain, the currency restriction, and the full attachment decision tree including the sandboxed-client fallback. An agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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?

With only 47% schema coverage, the description carries real weight: it explains the total-vs-allocations choice and oldest-first auto-allocation, the needsReview/notes contract, and the attachment field relationships (attachmentBase64 + attachmentMediaType + attachmentBytes vs attachmentToken). It leaves required receiptDate, printedTotal, bankAccountId, attachmentFilename, and attachmentSha256 undocumented, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("File a customer-payment DRAFT") and immediately scopes it as non-posting, distinguishing it from siblings like create_payment_draft and create_bank_clearing_draft. An agent can tell exactly what this does before opening the schema.

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 prerequisites and workflow: resolve the customer via resolve_customer, check obligations via open_invoices, then choose EITHER a lump total OR per-invoice allocations. It also states a hard exclusion (MYR only; foreign-currency is refused and routes to Banking → Payments), leaving nothing to inference.

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