generate_payment_sdk_snippetGenerates backend code using the official Payram JS/TS SDK to create a payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| framework | Yes | Target framework for the SDK payment snippet. generic-http provides a framework-agnostic example. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| snippet | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is JS/TS SDK backend code, a useful detail, but does not disclose output format details or any constraints beyond the SDK type.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the key qualifier (JS/TS SDK) front-loaded alongside the action. It is appropriately sized and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations plus full param coverage handle safety and inputs. The only gap is routing guidance against the many sibling snippet generators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single framework parameter is fully documented with an enum and per-value meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema does all the work; baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource (generates backend code) and specifies the mechanism (official Payram JS/TS SDK) to create a payment. This partially distinguishes it from HTTP-based siblings like generate_payment_http_snippet, though it does not explicitly name which sibling it is not.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The SDK mention implies a scenario, but there is no statement about choosing this over generate_payment_http_snippet, generate_payment_route_snippet, or scaffold_payram_app, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.