Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud

List Company Settings

brc_list_company_settings
Read-only

Lists BRC company settings.

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

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that it lists settings; it does not mention pagination behavior, filtering, or whether the result set is scoped by companyName.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is short but under-specified rather than concisely informative. A single sentence that restates the tool name does not count as an appropriately compact definition of an 8-parameter tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, a single required parameter, 8 total parameters, and many related sibling tools, the description should clarify what settings are listed, which company context is required, and how this differs from nearby "settings" tools. None of that is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning to top, page, skip, or pageSize, nor clarifies the relationship between companyName and connectionRef.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Lists BRC company settings" is essentially a tautology of the tool name and title. It does not say what kind of settings are returned or how they differ from settings exposed by sibling tools such as brc_get_company_processing_settings, brc_get_company_reference_settings, and brc_get_company_setup_config.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives, no mention that companyName is required, and no clarification of how this list relates to the other company settings 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