Skip to main content
Glama

Taokeh MCP server

File a pending correction draft for a posted paid expense (human approves in Taokeh)

update_expense_draft

FILES A PENDING DRAFT ONLY — NOTHING CHANGES UNTIL A HUMAN REVIEWS AND APPROVES IT IN TAOKEH. Propose a correction to a PAID EXPENSE already posted in Taokeh (an entry on the Expenses page — find its id with search_expenses). The owner or bookkeeper reviews it as a DIFF (current → proposed) and approves; only that tap re-books the entry, exactly as Expenses → Edit does, and the receipt already on it carries across. ROUTING — (1) THE EXPENSE NEVER HAPPENED (keyed twice, the wrong company's receipt): the owner DELETES it in Taokeh (Expenses → the expense → Delete); there is deliberately no AI lane for that. (2) IT HAPPENED BUT WAS KEYED WRONG (the date, the amount, the input SST, the category, the account it was paid from, the payee, the reference): THIS tool. (3) SOMETHING NEW HAPPENED LATER (a refund came back, a second payment was made): a new entry — create_expense_draft for a further payment, or a reversing journal via create_journal_draft for money that came back. WHAT YOU CAN CHANGE, sending ONLY what is wrong (everything you leave out is carried from the entry as it stands): date, amount (the gross ringgit paid), inputTax (the input SST inside that amount), debitAccountCode (the category) and creditAccountCode (paid from) — both from expense_accounts —, memo and reference. Ringgit only; the currency and the receipt are not changeable here. BLOCKED OUTRIGHT, checked when you file (the server runs the real correction and rolls it back) and again at approval: the entry is not a paid expense; its date is inside a LOCKED period (or your new date is); a category that is not a cost account; a paid-from account that cannot pay; or an entry split across more lines than the expense form can show. A proposal that changes nothing is refused. If the expense is edited after you read it, the one-tap approval is refused — call revise_draft (kind 'expense_update').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoA SHORT reviewer note: what was wrong and where the corrected figure came from.
entryIdYesREQUIRED — the paid expense's journal-entry id, from search_expenses.
proposedYesONLY what you want changed. An unknown or not-patchable key is refused by name.
needsReviewNoSet true when something gave you pause.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are sparse (only false hints), so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the pending/approval workflow, the diff review, that the receipt carries across, server-side rollback checks, hard blocked conditions, and the one-tap approval refusal on stale edits. This is far beyond what annotations provide and materially changes how an agent should reason about the call.

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 and dense, with all-caps emphasis that makes scanning harder than necessary. However, every section earns its place: the routing rules, patchable fields, and blocked conditions are all operationally critical and are organized under clear headers, with the central pending-draft behavior front-loaded.

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 complex, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly: it explains how to find the entry, what can be changed, what cannot, what will be rejected, and how to recover if the draft becomes stale. No critical operational context is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning the schema alone cannot convey: send only what is wrong, omitted fields carry forward, ringgit-only amounts, currency/receipt are immutable, null clears values, and unknown/patchable keys are refused by name. It also maps debitAccountCode/creditAccountCode to expense_accounts, enriching the agent's understanding of valid values.

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 and resource ('Files a pending draft' for a correction to a posted paid expense) and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing that nothing changes until human approval. It also names the source for finding the entry id (search_expenses) and contrasts with create_expense_draft, create_journal_draft, and the delete lane.

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 ROUTING section is explicit about when to use this tool versus the delete lane, create_expense_draft, or create_journal_draft. It also covers blocked cases and the fallback to revise_draft when the underlying expense changes after reading, leaving no ambiguity about alternatives.

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