Skip to main content
Glama

ifthenpay Payments MCP

by com.ifthenpay

payments_list

Lists completed payments using the ifthenpay Backoffice Key. Filter by payment method, date range, order ID, reference or request ID. Returns up to 1000 most recent payments if no filters are applied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountNoFilter by exact payment amount.
bo_keyYesifthenpay Backoffice Key (provided when signing the contract).
entityNoPayment method entity filter. Use: MB, MBWAY, PAYSHOP, CCARD, COFIDIS, GOOGLE, APPLE, PIX, or a 5-digit Multibanco entity number. Leave blank for all methods.
date_endNoEnd date/time in format dd-MM-yyyy HH:mm:ss (e.g. 31-01-2024 23:59:59).
order_idNoFilter by order identifier.
referenceNoFilter by payment reference (Multibanco/Payshop reference or orderId for other methods).
date_startNoStart date/time in format dd-MM-yyyy HH:mm:ss (e.g. 01-01-2024 00:00:00).
request_idNoFilter by the unique request token returned at payment creation.
sub_entityNoPayment method key or sub-entity (e.g. MB KEY, MBWAY KEY, PAYSHOP KEY). Leave blank to match all.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the limit of 1000 most recent payments when no filters are applied, which is key behavioral info. However, it does not mention other traits like pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with purpose. No extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema, so description should clarify return structure. It mentions 'returns up to 1000 most recent payments' but does not specify fields or format. For a list tool with 9 parameters, this is a notable omission.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes filter categories (payment method, date range, order ID, reference, request ID) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter 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 completed payments, specifies filters, and distinguishes from sibling creation/status tools. The verb 'Lists' and resource 'completed payments' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use (to list completed payments) and mentions filtering options. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools cover creation and status checks, so no direct alternative for listing exists.

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

All ifthenpay Payments 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 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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources