Papaya Pay Any Bill (US)

by com.papayapay.consumer-production.mcp-agent

Check Payment Method

check_payment_method

Read-only

Optional: check whether the user has finished the secure form and a card is on the bill yet. Returns the card's last 4 digits and name when one is set, or a PENDING status when the form has not been completed. Use only if you need to confirm the card landed (e.g. the user asks) - it is not a required step; the normal path is analyze_bill -> user fills the form -> confirm_payment_intent.

Args:
    check_input: the user_id and bill_id to look up

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`check_input`	Yes	Identifiers to look up whether a card has been set on a bill yet.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is consistent and adds specifics about return values (card details or PENDING). No contradictions; it could mention idempotency but fine given readOnlyHint.

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?

Well-structured with clear main description and Args section. Slightly lengthy but no wasted words.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage, and return info. With an output schema available, it's sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 parameter is well-documented in schema. The description's Args section adds little beyond restating the purpose; no new semantic details.

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 it checks whether the user has finished the secure form and a card is on the bill, and specifies return values (last 4 digits/name or PENDING). It distinguishes from sibling tools like confirm_payment_intent by noting the normal path.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (e.g., user asks) and notes it's not a required step, contrasting with the normal path (analyze_bill → user fills form → confirm_payment_intent).

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

All Papaya Pay Any Bill (US) tools Inspect

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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct step in the bill payment lifecycle: analyze creates the bill, check_payment_method verifies card setup, confirm_payment_intent submits payment, fetch_bill_status tracks payment status, request_bill_cancellation stops a payment, and get_new_auth_token handles auth refresh. No two tools overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate the check status vs. check card method tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All six tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: analyze_bill, check_payment_method, confirm_payment_intent, fetch_bill_status, get_new_auth_token, request_bill_cancellation. Verbs are descriptive and distinct, with no mixed conventions or ambiguous short names.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a bill payment domain: two core steps (analyze and confirm), one optional verification (card check), one status query, one cancellation, and one auth helper. The count feels neither sparse nor bloated, and each tool contributes to the core workflow.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of paying a bill: create, set payment method, confirm payment, check status, and cancel if needed. Auth token refresh covers authorization failures, and re-running analyze_bill handles corrections. No obvious gaps that would cause agent failures in the intended use case.

Resources

Need Help?