Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud

List Cash Payments

brc_list_cash_payments
Read-only

Lists BRC cash payments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNo
pageNo
skipNo
filterNoOptional OData $filter expression, only if this endpoint supports filtering.
orderByNoOptional OData $orderby expression, only if this endpoint supports ordering.
pageSizeNo
companyNameYesCompany context name, for example YOUR-COMPANY-NAME.
connectionRefNoOpaque Red connection reference returned by brc_confirm_company_connection. Pass this exact value on every later tool call when the MCP client rotates session ids (for example Vibe/Mistral). Keep reusing the same connectionRef after successful tool calls — do not start a new connection because a lookup returned empty or partial data. It is not an API key and does not contain credentials.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Read-only and non-destructive behavior are already declared by annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no context beyond that. It does not mention pagination, company filtering, returned fields, or any other runtime behavior, so it provides no transparency beyond the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It gets straight to the action and resource, which makes it easy to parse even though it is under-specified in other dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list operation, the description plus schema is minimally satisfactory: the agent can identify this as a read-only list of cash payments and see that companyName is required. But with no output schema and no statement about what fields come back or how pagination behaves, the description leaves meaningful gaps contextual.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides no parameter-level meaning. Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the remaining parameters such as top, page, skip, and pageSize are left to names/defaults. The description does not compensate for those gaps or explain how companyName, connectionRef, and pagination parameters interact.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Lists') and the resource ('BRC cash payments'), so an agent can identify it as a read-only list operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby sibling tools such as brc_list_payments, brc_get_cash_payment, or brc_batch_cash_payments.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and names no sibling tools or exclusions. It only restates the basic purpose, leaving an agent to infer when 'list cash payments' is preferable to other related list, get, or batch operations.

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

All Red by Big Red Cloud toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have a clear single resource-and-action focus, and the systematic naming helps an agent separate create/get/update/delete/list operations. The main confusion risks are the help/search cluster (red_help, find_help_resources, get_help_resource_details) and the payment/cash-payment/batch-payment variants, which require careful reading of the descriptions to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The brc_ prefix with snake_case verb_noun naming is used consistently across the vast majority of tools, e.g. brc_list_customers, brc_create_sales_invoice, brc_delete_purchase. A few noun-style names like brc_company_readiness_check, brc_grouped_nominal_accounts_report, and brc_red_help break the pattern, but these are minor deviations.

Tool Count1/5

159 tools is an extreme count for an MCP server, well beyond the 50+ threshold described as an extreme mismatch. While the accounting domain is broad, the surface is inflated by batch variants, generated-reference variants, and without-dormant list variants that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

Core accounting entities have strong lifecycle coverage: customers, suppliers, products, sales reps, bank accounts, quotes, sales invoices/entries/credit notes, purchases, payments, cash receipts, accruals, prepayments, and nominal journal batches all support relevant CRUD and batch operations. Minor gaps include the quote update being limited to the reference only, no update/create tools for VAT categories or company settings, and email sending being limited to quotes, invoices, and statements.

Resources