Skip to main content
Glama
BigRedCloud

Red MCP Server

Official
by BigRedCloud

brc_create_sales_entry

Creates a sales entry by first presenting a draft for user confirmation, then posting only after explicit counterparty approval.

Instructions

Creates a BRC sales entry using structured MCP fields. First call without confirmWrite: true returns confirmation_required and a payload preview — show a plain-English draft in chat, then retry with confirmWrite: true only after explicit user confirmation in a later message. Passing preflight is not confirmation. Also requires confirmCounterpartyExplicit: true once the user has explicitly named or confirmed the customer/supplier in the current conversation. Do not reuse a counterparty from an earlier draft without that confirmation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYes
acCodeYes
procDateYes
entryDateYes
netAmountYes
vatRateIdYes
customerIdYes
accountCodeYes
companyNameYesCompany context name, for example YOUR-COMPANY-NAME.
descriptionYes
confirmWriteNoMust be true only after a plain-English draft has been shown in the current conversation and the user explicitly confirmed posting (for example yes, create it / post it now / confirm). Never set true on the first call or because the user initially asked to create something.
vatPercentageYes
bookTranTypeIdYes
analysisCategoryIdYes
confirmCounterpartyExplicitNoMust be true only after the user explicitly named or confirmed the customer, supplier, or other counterparty in the current conversation. Never set true because a customer or supplier appeared in an earlier draft, was inferred from context, or was filled in without the user's explicit choice in this conversation.
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses the tool's behavioral traits: two-phase confirmation, return of confirmation_required and payload preview on first call, need for explicit user confirmation, and prohibition of reusing counterparty without explicit confirmation. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then details the workflow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key workflow and constraints. It explains the two-phase confirmation and counterparty confirmation, which are the most complex aspects. It does not detail other standard parameters (e.g., netAmount, vatRateId) but the agent can infer from names. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct tool usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is low (20%), but the description adds critical semantic context for the two boolean parameters (confirmWrite, confirmCounterpartyExplicit), explaining their usage rules in the workflow. For other 12 parameters, no additional meaning is provided beyond schema names/types. However, the workflow context for the booleans is essential and compensates somewhat.

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 clearly states it creates a BRC sales entry using structured MCP fields. It distinguishes itself from numerous sibling tools like brc_create_sales_invoice, brc_create_sales_credit_note, etc., by specifying the exact resource (sales entry) and the unique two-phase confirmation workflow.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step guidelines: first call without confirmWrite: true yields preview, then retry with confirmWrite: true only after explicit user confirmation. Also requires confirmCounterpartyExplicit: true after user explicitly names counterparty. Clearly states when not to use (e.g., not on first call, not without explicit confirmation) and distinguishes from passing preflight.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BigRedCloud/red-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server