Skip to main content
Glama

HelloTime MCP

by ai.hellotime.mcp

local_payment_methods

List local bank-rail / wallet payment methods relevant to HelloTime payroll and contractor payouts (UPI, IMPS, NEFT, RTGS, BACS, FPS, Faster Payments, Interac e-Transfer, EFT, PayID, PayTo, NPP, EFT/BECS, ACH, Same Day ACH, Fedwire, RTP, WPS-SIF, PayNow, FAST, GIRO, NZ Direct Credit, etc.). Returns rail (instant / same-day / next-day / multi-day), use-cases, issuing authority, HelloTime support level, and operational notes (per-transaction caps, settlement windows, retirement timelines). Filter by country, useCase, rail, or id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoReturn a single payment method by id (e.g. "in-upi", "au-payid", "us-rtp").
railNoFilter by settlement rail (instant, same-day, next-day, multi-day).
countryNoFilter to one country (IN, US, CA, GB, AU, AE, SG, NZ).
useCaseNoFilter by payment use-case. Defaults to HelloTime's payroll + contractor-payout scope; pass an explicit value to widen.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns rail, use-cases, issuing authority, support level, and operational notes, and implies read-only behavior via 'List'. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but none are critical for this read-only 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 efficiently structured: purpose, return content, and filters. The long list of examples is dense but valuable, and each sentence contributes meaningful information without fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates exact return fields (rail, use-cases, authority, support level, operational notes) and provides expressive examples. Given the 4 optional params and no annotations, this is strong contextual coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds domain context with extensive examples of payment methods and clarifies filter usage, going beyond the schema's individual param descriptions.

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 the tool lists payment methods with specific scope (HelloTime payroll and contractor payouts) and gives concrete examples (UPI, IMPS, BACS). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on payment methods, not features or plans.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context (payroll/contractor payouts) and explicit filter options (country, useCase, rail, id). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope is distinct enough to infer when to use it.

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

All HelloTime MCP 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource: features, plans, competitors, country support, payroll engines, statutory rates, payment methods, and a free-text search across all of them. There is no overlap in purpose; even feature_search complements the list tools by handling ad-hoc queries.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent: three use a 'list_' prefix (list_competitors, list_features, list_plans), while the rest are noun phrases like 'country_support', 'feature_search', 'local_payment_methods', 'payroll_capabilities', and 'statutory_rates'. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, making names less predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped number for a product information server covering features, plans, competitors, countries, payroll, payments, and rates. Each tool has a clear role and the count is within the ideal range.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers all major categories one would expect for the HelloTime product domain: features, plans, competitor positioning, country-specific support, payroll engines, statutory rates, and payment methods. The feature_search tool further fills gaps by enabling cross-category queries, leaving no obvious dead ends.

Resources