Conduit Agentic Commerce

Payment methods

payment_methods

List or enable agent payment methods (action=list|enable) with friendly labels. Defaults: cod + x402. invoice (B2B) is coming_soon. bank_card is handoff-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rail`	No	Rail key required when action=enable, e.g. x402 (not bank_card vault)
`action`	Yes	list = enumerate rails; enable = turn on one rail
`agent_id`	Yes	Agent id whose methods to list or enable
`session_token`	No	Session token from agent_authenticate — required whenever agent_id is passed

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	No
`next`	No
`error`	No
`label`	No
`detail`	No
`status`	No
`methods`	No
`rail_key`	No
`approval_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 24, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / next / properties / args / additionalProperties / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / next / properties / args / additionalProperties / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
Changed4 schema fields changedAug 29, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / approvalUrl
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / approval_url
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / railKey
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / rail_key
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / session_token

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Session token from agent_authenticate — required whenever agent_id is passed",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJul 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: defaults, coming_soon status, and handoff-only restriction for bank_card. However, it doesn't explain side effects of enabling a rail or whether enabling is reversible, which would be valuable for a mutation-capable 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action scope is front-loaded, defaults and special cases are packed efficiently, and every clause adds information. The parenthetical about bank_card vault is a useful caveat that prevents misuse.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description covers the key behavioral nuances (defaults, coming_soon, handoff-only) and the rail requirement. It could mention what happens when action=list vs enable in terms of side effects, but for a 4-param tool with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the rail key requirement ('required when action=enable') and the bank_card vault caveat, but it doesn't go beyond what the schema already conveys for most parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb+resource combination ('List or enable agent payment methods') and specifies the two actions (list|enable) with friendly labels. It distinguishes itself from siblings like payment_mandate by focusing on agent payment methods, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: to list or enable payment methods, with defaults (cod + x402), and notes that invoice is coming_soon and bank_card is handoff-only. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the action enum and rail guidance provide practical usage direction.

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

All Conduit Agentic Commerce tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?