Payram

Generate mock Payram webhook event

generate_mock_webhook_event

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates a snippet to send mock Payram webhook events to your local endpoint for testing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "language": "<language>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "generate_mock_webhook_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	Payment status to simulate in the mock webhook event
`language`	Yes	Language/tool for the mock webhook request (curl for command-line testing)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	Yes
`notes`	No
`title`	Yes
`snippet`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / language / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "typescript",
-  "javascript",
-  "python",
-  "go",
-  "php",
-  "java"
-]New value: +[
+  "typescript",
+  "javascript",
+  "python",
+  "go",
+  "php",
+  "java",
+  "bash"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedFeb 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the output is a code snippet for a local endpoint rather than an actual webhook dispatch, which prevents the agent from assuming a network side effect.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and the test-oriented framing appear immediately. Nothing in it is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety, so the description is nearly complete for a two-parameter generator. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation within the generate_webhook_* family, which is the one thing an agent could still get wrong.

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% and both parameters carry enums with descriptions (payment status to simulate, language/tool), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or how the language/status choices affect the generated snippet, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it 'generates a snippet to send mock Payram webhook events.' That is far clearer than a tautology and tells the agent it produces test code, not a live webhook. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the crowded generate_webhook_handler / generate_webhook_event_router siblings, which also concern webhooks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrases 'mock' and 'for testing ... your local endpoint' imply the usage context (local/test-only simulation), which is real but implicit guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the alternative webhook-generation siblings, so the agent must infer routing.

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

All Payram tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?