Papaya Pay Any Bill (US)

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

Cancel Bill

request_bill_cancellation

Destructive

Cancel a submitted bill so it will not be paid. Use when the user wants to stop a bill they submitted; cancellation may be rejected if the payment has already progressed too far - relay any error to the user. Not for correcting bill details: re-run analyze_bill for that.

Args:
    bill_cancel_input: the bill identifier and auth token

Returns:
    the cancelled bill id and status, or error details

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bill_cancel_input`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so destructive nature is known. Description adds that cancellation may be rejected if payment progressed, and to relay errors. This enriches behavioral context 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very concise: purpose, usage guidance, args, and returns in a few sentences. No fluff, front-loaded core information.

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?

Covers main purpose, usage, return values. Could mention permission requirements or that cancellation may not be reversible, but overall sufficient given tool complexity and annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. However, it only vaguely mentions 'the bill identifier and auth token' without detailing the nested structure, required fields, or patterns. The schema provides these details but the description adds little value.

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 cancels a submitted bill to prevent payment, using specific verb 'cancel' and resource 'bill'. It distinguishes from sibling `analyze_bill` by noting it's not for correcting details.

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 says when to use (user wants to stop a bill), what to do if rejection occurs (relay error), and what not to use it for (correcting details, redirecting to `analyze_bill`).

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?