More Good Reviews

Create Charge

createCharge

Create Charge

Record a customer revenue event from an external billing system.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "createCharge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	Email address for the person or customer.
`phone`	No	Phone number for the person or customer.
`amount`	Yes	Charge amount in the smallest currency unit.
`currency`	No	Three-letter ISO currency code.
`charged_at`	No	When the charge occurred. Optional instant for request bodies: Unix timestamp as integer (seconds), or a date/time string of at most 50 characters that PHP Carbon can parse. For strings, ISO-8601 / RFC 3339 (for example 2026-04-28T15:30:00Z) is the recommended format in examples and client integrations. Invalid values fail validation. When the field is omitted or null, the API uses the current server time where that behavior is documented on the operation.
`location_slug`	No	Slug of an existing project location. Returns 404 if the slug is not found. Accepts at most 100 characters.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Short code or application-level status code for this resource.
`data`	No	Response payload for the request.
`success`	No	Indicates whether the request completed successfully.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / location_slug / description

Previous value: -"Slug of an existing project location. Returns 404 if the slug is not found."New value: +"Slug of an existing project location. Returns 404 if the slug is not found. Accepts at most 100 characters."

First observedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value by framing this as recording an already-completed revenue event rather than moving money. It says nothing about non-idempotency duplicate risk, auth requirements, or side effects on customer records.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the highest-value clarification. The repeated title as a heading line is redundant with the tool title, but the body itself is tight.

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?

Six params at full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema mean most burden is elsewhere, so the description only needs to place the tool in context, which it does minimally. Still missing for a non-idempotent write: retry/duplicate behavior and the practical consequence of passing an unknown location_slug.

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%, including amount-in-minor-units, ISO currency, and Carbon-parseable charged_at semantics, so the schema carries this dimension entirely. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own. 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?

Names a concrete verb and resource (Create Charge) and the description sharpens it: recording a revenue event that already occurred in an external billing system, as opposed to processing a payment. That distinction is genuinely useful. It stops short of contrasting with siblings like listCharges or deleteCharge, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. location_slug must reference an existing location or the call 404s), and no alternatives named. The 'external billing system' phrase implies a backfill/reporting context, but the agent must infer it.

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

All More Good Reviews 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?