Payram

Scaffold Payram Payments & Payouts App

scaffold_payram_app

Generates a minimal full-stack app skeleton with Payram payments and payouts routes (and a simple UI) for a chosen language and framework.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`appName`	No	Name for the generated application. If not provided, defaults to payram-{framework}-starter
`language`	Yes	Programming language for the application (node for JavaScript/TypeScript)
`framework`	Yes	Web framework to use for scaffolding the application
`includeWebhooks`	No	Whether to include webhook handler code in the scaffolded application

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`files`	Yes
`appName`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`framework`	Yes
`instructions`	Yes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'generates' without disclosing side effects like file creation, directory changes, dependency installation, or whether it is safe/non-destructive. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Generates', and contains no fluff or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.

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, and the param schema is complete. The description clarifies the output includes payments/payouts routes and a simple UI. It lacks detail on prerequisites but is adequate for a scaffold tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description mentions 'language and framework' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 'Generates a minimal full-stack app skeleton with Payram payments and payouts routes (and a simple UI) for a chosen language and framework.' This specifies the verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from sibling snippet generators like generate_payment_route_snippet.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies a use case for bootstrapping a full project, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use. The context is clear enough without explicit exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

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

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct targets, but there is notable overlap in diagnostics (check_node_sync, check_payment_readiness, payram_doctor, test_payram_connection) and a large cluster of snippet generators for different languages that could be confused. The descriptions help, but several tools appear to serve the same underlying purpose.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used consistently, but verb prefixes vary unpredictably: check_, generate_, get_, list_, lookup_, search_, snippet_, test_, restart_, etc. Similar actions use different verbs (lookup_payment vs search_payments vs get_payment_summary; generate_payment_route_snippet vs snippet_express_payment_route), making the naming pattern less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 52 tools, the set is significantly over-scoped for a developer assistance server. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., a single snippet generator with language parameters, or unified health diagnostics), and the count introduces unnecessary complexity for agents.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers payments (create, lookup, search, summary), diagnostics, docs, and many integration snippets, but lacks direct payout creation (only snippet generators), no refund or wallet creation. These are notable gaps for a payments platform server, though the snippet tools and diagnostics mitigate some dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?