Papaya Pay Any Bill (US)

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

Confirm Payment

confirm_payment_intent

Destructive

Final step: submit the bill for payment, after a card has been set. You must have confirmed the amount with the user first (amount_to_pay may be partial) and quote their confirmation in user_amount_statement - do not call this until you have asked. If analyze_bill reported a need for extra information, supply it in extra_infos or submission will fail. Use entered_account / entered_provider only to correct a mis-extracted value. Pass the user's current refresh_token (from analyze_bill or a prior confirm) - do not guess.

Args:
    confirm_input: identifiers, the amount to pay, contact info and any extra info

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm_input`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation. The description adds context like 'Final step' and prerequisites, but does not elaborate on irreversible consequences or side effects of wrong usage. It mentions failure conditions (missing extra_infos) but lacks deeper behavioral detail. Still adds value beyond annotations.

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 relatively concise, using a short paragraph and a bulleted 'Args' block. It front-loads the core purpose and conditions. However, it could be more structured, e.g., separating preconditions from parameter behavior. The 'Args' section is minimal but effective.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the complexity of a nested input object with many required fields, the description covers key aspects: preconditions, dependencies on other tools (analyze_bill), and the need for user confirmation. It does not mention the output schema, but since one exists, the agent can infer return values. Some nuance about destructive nature is missing, but overall adequate.

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?

The description summarizes confirm_input as containing 'identifiers, the amount to pay, contact info and any extra info', adding context beyond the schema's property types. Although schema descriptions for nested fields are comprehensive (0% coverage at tool level), the description's summary helps the agent understand the high-level structure, earning a score above baseline 3.

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 identifies the tool as 'Final step: submit the bill for payment' and distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_bill (analysis) and check_payment_method (checking method). The verb 'submit' and resource 'payment' are specific, and the context of being final step differentiates it.

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?

Explicit conditions are given: must have set a card, must confirm amount with user and provide quote, supply extra_infos if needed, only use entered fields for correction, and pass refresh token. The instruction 'do not call this until you have asked' and warning that submission will fail if extra info is missing provide clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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?