Moltline Merchant Math

This connector has been deprecated

Superseded listing, not a dead server. This entry was imported from an early Glama registration under com.moltlinestudio.mcp; the same server is listed under its official MCP Registry name — use com.moltlinestudio/merchant. Endpoint unchanged: https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/merchant — still live, still free on the free tier. Only this duplicate entry is deprecated.

Processor Fees

processor_fees

Read-onlyIdempotent

Break down payment-processor fees: fee, net, and effective rate. FREE.

Uses editable presets for stripe/paypal/square/shopify (verify current rates) or your own custom_pct + custom_fixed. Typical input {"amount": 1000, "processor": "stripe", "transactions": 10} returns {"gross": 1000, "fee": 32.0, "net": 968.0, "effective_rate_pct": 3.2, "note": "..."}.

Use when the charge amount is known and the net payout is the question. Not for the reverse: the gross needed to net a target is charge_to_net. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error; it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "amount must be > 0, transactions >= 1"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes	Total gross amount processed; must be greater than 0.
`processor`	No	One of "stripe", "paypal", "square", "shopify", or "custom". Default "stripe".	stripe
`custom_pct`	No	Percentage fee used when processor is "custom", e.g. 2.5 for 2.5%.
`custom_fixed`	No	Fixed per-transaction fee used when processor is "custom", e.g. 0.25.
`transactions`	No	How many transactions the amount is spread across; at least 1. Default 1.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: preset rates are editable and should be verified, the tool is free, it returns structured error objects rather than protocol errors, and retry is safe after correcting input.

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 front-loaded and structured around purpose, usage, example, and error behavior. It is slightly verbose in places, repeating read-only/idempotent behavior already covered by annotations, but the information remains useful.

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?

For a simple fee-calculation tool with an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: purpose, when to use it, sibling alternative, example input/output, preset caveat, and error behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example input and clarifies that custom_pct and custom_fixed are for the custom processor option, which gives useful meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: breaking down payment-processor fees into fee, net, and effective rate. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling `charge_to_net` by stating that this is not the reverse calculation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit usage condition: use when the charge amount is known and the net payout is the question. It also names the alternative tool for the reverse case and explains safe retry after input errors.

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

All Moltline Merchant Math 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?