Papaya Pay Any Bill (USA)

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true, but the description adds context: cancellation may be rejected if payment progressed too far, and errors should be relayed to the user. This goes beyond the annotation to set expectations about outcomes.

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 compact with clear sections for purpose, usage, args, and returns. No fluff.

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?

Covers the tool's primary function, failure modes, and output format. Given the output schema exists and annotations provide safety flags, this is complete.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for bill_id and auth_token, including patterns and origins. The description only says 'bill identifier and auth token', which adds little beyond the schema's internal documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool cancels a submitted bill to prevent payment. Distinguishes from analyze_bill by explicitly noting it's not for correcting bill 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?

Provides explicit use case ('when the user wants to stop a bill they submitted'), names an alternative (analyze_bill), and describes a rejection scenario. This is strong guidance for tool selection.

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?