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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 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"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

While annotations only hint at write behavior (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: it does not post immediately, the server re-derives allocation against live outstanding, attachmentBytes prevents truncated-file acceptance, and attachmentToken vs attachmentBase64 are mutually exclusive. It also states that store of proof rides the draft to settlement. These go well beyond annotation coverage and set accurate expectations.

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 but intentionally so—given the complexity of 15 parameters and multi-step attachment logic. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and workflow, then methodically covers allocation and attachment rules. Each sentence adds substantive guidance; no filler. The length is justified given the tool's intricacy.

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 tool with 15 parameters, no output schema, and complex behaviors (allocation, attachment transport, reviewer notes), the description is thorough. It covers prerequisites (customer resolution, open_invoices), decision points (total vs allocations), exception handling (foreign currency, network limits), and security details (attachmentBytes for truncation). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is only 47%, so the description must compensate—and it does extensively. It explains the semantics and interplay of total vs allocations, needsReview, notes, and all attachment-related parameters (base64, token, bytes, sha256, mediaType, filename). It clarifies when each attachment method is appropriate and the role of attachmentBytes in detecting truncation. This far exceeds what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('File') and resource ('customer-payment DRAFT'), and clarifies it does NOT post but creates a pending draft for user review. It explicitly outlines the workflow (resolve customer, see open invoices, then submit total or allocations). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling draft tools (e.g., create_invoice_draft, create_bill_draft) by emphasizing the receipt-settlement purpose.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use instructions: resolve the customer first, check open invoices, then choose either a lump total or per-invoice allocations. It also names alternatives (request_attachment_upload for large files) and gives routing guidance for foreign-currency invoices (refused, route to Banking → Payments). It even specifies conditions for when to inline vs. out-of-band attachment, including network limitations.

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