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

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`total`	No
`customer`	No
`customerId`	No
`allocations`	No
`needsReview`	No
`receiptDate`	Yes
`printedTotal`	No
`bankAccountId`	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 settlement entry on approval, exactly as an inline one does.
`attachmentBase64`	No	The 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.
`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.
`attachmentFilename`	No	Optional original filename for the attachment, e.g. bank-in-slip.jpg.
`attachmentMediaType`	No	The attachment's MIME type, e.g. 'image/jpeg' or 'application/pdf'. Required when attachmentBase64 is given.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false hints, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: it discloses that no posting or settlement happens until human approval, that the server re-derives allocations against live outstanding and its figures are authoritative, and that truncated base64 or bad-type files are rejected rather than filed. It also discloses the network-dependent behavior (inline anyway when taokeh.my is unreachable) and the 'never both' mutual exclusion. Nothing contradicts the annotations; creating a pending draft is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 long (~350 words) but nearly every sentence maps to a distinct operational decision an agent must make, and it front-loads the core draft-not-post semantic before each concern. Minor tightening is possible — the 's.82 record-keeping' parenthetical and some attachment-outcome phrasing are repeated in the schema — but the density is warranted for a 15-parameter tool with two attachment paths and a fallback rule.

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 very complex tool with uninformative annotations and no output schema, the description covers the full call workflow: prerequisites, currency exclusion, allocation modes, review obligations, both attachment routes, and the downstream record-keeping outcome. The remaining gaps are the unstated return value (e.g., whether a draft ID comes back for use with revise_draft) and the two undocumented parameters noted above — minor against the otherwise thorough coverage.

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 compensates for the decision-critical parameters: the EITHER lump `total` (auto-allocated oldest-first) OR explicit `allocations` mutual exclusion, the paired `needsReview`+`notes` workflow with quality guidance, and the attachmentBase64/attachmentToken either/or with `attachmentBytes` as a truncation guard. However, `bankAccountId` and `printedTotal` receive no meaning from either the schema or the description.

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?

Opens with a specific verb phrase — 'File a customer-payment DRAFT into Taokeh ("customer paid X")' — that names the exact resource and the direction of money movement, cleanly separating it from create_bill_draft and create_invoice_draft. The explicit 'This does NOT post' adds the crucial draft-vs-post distinction that the title alone cannot convey.

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 preconditions and sequencing: resolve the customer via resolve_customer and check open_invoices first. States hard exclusions (MYR only; foreign-currency invoices are refused and route to Banking → Payments) and names the alternative tool for large attachments (request_attachment_upload), plus a concrete network-fallback rule for sandboxed shells.

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?