Papaya Pay Any Bill (USA)

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

Refresh Auth Token

get_new_auth_token

Get a fresh auth token when another tool fails with an authorization error. Pass the user's current refresh_token; returns a new auth_token/refresh_token pair to use on the retried call and on later calls. Call this only in response to an auth failure, not preemptively.

Args:
    new_token_input: contains the user's refresh token

Returns:
    a new auth_token and refresh_token pair, or an error if the refresh token is
    missing or invalid

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`new_token_input`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds valuable context by explaining that it returns a new token pair and can error if the refresh token is invalid. It doesn't contradict annotations and goes beyond their minimal information.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise usage instructions and return value expectations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 when to use the tool, what input to provide, and what to expect as output. The presence of an output schema further helps, but the description itself is complete for this simple auth-refresh tool.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explicitly mentions 'Pass the user's current refresh_token' and defines new_token_input as containing the refresh token. This compensates for any missing schema descriptions and gives clear semantic meaning to the parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get a fresh auth token when another tool fails with an authorization error.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (auth token), and the triggering context, which distinguishes it from sibling billing tools.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this only in response to an auth failure, not preemptively.' It also explains the input needed (refresh_token) and the expected outcome, giving a clear when-to-use scenario.

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 (USA) 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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role in the payment workflow: analyzing/creating a bill, checking card status, confirming payment, fetching payment status, refreshing auth tokens, and cancelling a bill. There is no meaningful overlap between these operations.

Naming Consistency5/5

All six tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (analyze_bill, check_payment_method, confirm_payment_intent, fetch_bill_status, get_new_auth_token, request_bill_cancellation). The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a bill payment server, covering the full lifecycle without unnecessary redundancy or overwhelming complexity. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the workflow.

Completeness5/5

The tools cover the complete bill payment lifecycle: creating/analyzing a bill, verifying payment method, confirming payment, checking status, cancelling, and handling auth token refresh. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?