Skip to main content
Glama

Red by Big Red Cloud

by io.github.BigRedCloud

List User-Defined Fields

brc_list_user_defined_fields
Read-only

Lists BRC user defined fields.

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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'Lists...'—no mention of response shape, pagination behavior, filtering, or what happens when no user-defined fields exist. It adds little beyond the annotations and title.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is not padded or redundant, though it is close to a bare restatement of the title 'List User-Defined Fields.'

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?

Given a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It does not explain what the returned fields look like, how pagination works, what companyName context is needed, or how filtering/ordering should be used. The annotations confirm safety, but not how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 adds no parameter semantics. The schema explains only companyName, filter, orderBy, and connectionRef; the pagination parameters top, page, skip, and pageSize are left as bare types with defaults. Since schema description coverage is only 50%, the description needed to compensate for these unclear parameters, but it does not.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Lists BRC user defined fields.' It is unambiguous about the operation being a list/read. It does not explain what a BRC user-defined field is or add differentiating context, but the resource name is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of connection requirements, prerequisites such as brc_confirm_company_connection, or when a list operation is preferable to the get-style tools for user-defined fields. This leaves usage entirely to inference.

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