Skip to main content
Glama

Taokeh MCP server

Daily brief

daily_brief

Your morning brief in one call: today's and this-month's sales & expenses, cash position (cash.total is LIQUID money only — cash + banks + gateway float; any owner advance comes back separately as cash.ownerFunding, and any credit-card debt as cash.cards / cash.cardsOwing — both are liabilities that must never be added to, or netted against, the cash total), who owes you (top debtors + overdue buckets — the buckets count invoices only; receivables.unmatchedPayments, when present, is customer money received but not yet matched to an invoice, already netted inside receivables.total), what's waiting for your approval (approvals.total counts DECISIONS, not rows: a real approval contributes its item count, while an operational to-do like "listings to link" counts as 1 however long its backlog — read each item's own count for the size. A STAGED SET (staged_documents, staged_products, …) is one decision too, so its count is always 1: read rows for how many are actually waiting, flagged for how many need a human look, and fenced for how many cannot be entered while the accounting start date stands where it is (they are dated on or before it, so the opening balances already carry them). A fenced row is not work the owner can finish on this queue: the remedies are to leave it out, or to move the accounting start date — after which Taokeh re-checks the fence and the row becomes enterable), tax position, and low stock. Assembles the same figures as the individual tools (business_snapshot, cash_position, ar_aging, tax_position, low_stock) plus your pending-approval queue, so "brief me" is a single read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description repeatedly calls this a 'single read' and presents it as a read-only aggregation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=false, contradicting that safety profile. Although it adds rich domain semantics about cash, approvals, and staged rows, the annotation contradiction mandates a score of 1.

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?

It front-loads the summary, but the rest is a single dense, run-on paragraph with numerous parenthetical caveats. The field-level semantics are valuable for a no-output-schema tool, though the structure is not scannable and the prose is overly verbose.

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?

With no output schema and a complex aggregate return, the description explains the key output fields and their boundaries in detail: cash.total is liquid only, owner funding and cards are separate liabilities, receivables.unmatchedPayments are already netted, approvals count decisions rather than rows, and staged/fenced rows have special semantics. This is enough for correct interpretation.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not attempt to add parameter detail beyond the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource set: it is the one-call morning brief covering sales, expenses, cash, receivables, approvals, tax, and stock. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the individual tools it assembles (business_snapshot, cash_position, ar_aging, tax_position, low_stock).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly positions the tool for 'brief me' as a single read that replaces aggregating the individual figures, and names those alternatives. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as when only one metric is needed.

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