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, settle the invoices and issue the official receipt (the next OR number, dated as the payment) — exactly as Sales → Receive payment does. 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. A customer who paid in CASH is not this lane (its approval books a bank): tell the owner to record it on Sales → Official receipts → Receive payment, with Received into = Cash. 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, beside the official receipt. 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. A receipt dated on or before the accounting start date never settles an OPENING invoice — that invoice is what was still owed on the start date, so the money is already counted in it: explicit allocations naming one are refused at filing, and a lump total is never poured into one.

Input 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds far more: the draft is pending and only posts on human approval, approval writes the bank receipt and issues the next OR number, the server re-derives allocations as authoritative, and the opening-invoice refusal behavior. This is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Content is front-loaded with purpose and exclusions, but it is a single dense wall of text mixing purpose, workflow, currency rules, cash-lane routing, attachment protocol and the opening-invoice edge case. A few sentences (e.g. the attachment shell/allowlist aside) could be trimmed or split into scannable clauses.

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 covers what the tool does NOT do, who must approve, currency constraint, attachment mechanics and the one non-obvious accounting edge case. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 must compensate, and it does for the hardest params — total (auto-allocation), allocations (per-invoice), needsReview plus a short reviewer notes rule, and the attachmentBase64/attachmentBytes/attachmentToken protocol including when to fall back to inline. It leaves customer/customerId/bankAccountId/printedTotal and the receiptDate formatting unaddressed, so not fully compensating.

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 and resource ('File a customer-payment DRAFT'), names the target system, and immediately contrasts with the posting action and with the cash lane. An agent can distinguish this from create_payment_draft / create_bank_clearing_draft without opening a 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?

Explicitly sequences prerequisites (resolve_customer, open_invoices), gives the two mutually exclusive input styles (lump total oldest-first vs explicit allocations), states the MYR-only exclusion, names the cash alternative with its exact UI path, and explains the opening-invoice date rule. No inference left.

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