Checks the status of a previously requested MB WAY payment. Returns pending, paid, declined, timeout, or cancelled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mbway_key | Yes | ifthenpay MB WAY key. | |
| request_id | Yes | Request ID returned by mbway_request_payment. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the possible return statuses (pending, paid, declined, timeout, cancelled), which gives good behavioral insight. It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but 'checks status' implies a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The most important information (what it does and what it returns) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status check tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and return values adequately. It could mention polling behavior or that it only works for pending requests, but it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 value by noting that request_id comes from mbway_request_payment, linking to a sibling tool and providing usage context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks the status of a previously requested MB WAY payment, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling mbway_request_payment by implying it is the follow-up step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates it is for previously requested payments, implying use after mbway_request_payment. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context from sibling names is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct payment method or action (e.g., cofidis_create_payment vs mbway_request_payment), and the two MB WAY tools are clearly complementary (request vs check status). No ambiguity between tools.
All tool names follow a consistent `method_action` pattern in snake_case (e.g., creditcard_create_payment, mbway_check_status, payments_list). Actions like `create_payment`, `create_reference`, and `request_payment` are appropriate for their respective methods.
9 tools is well-scoped for a payment gateway MCP server, covering multiple payment methods and a list endpoint. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
Covers creation for all payment methods and includes a status check for MB WAY. However, dedicated status/retrieve tools for other payment methods are missing; they rely on the payments_list endpoint. Missing cancellation or refund tools, which are common in payment systems.
