Payram

Test Payram Connectivity

test_payram_connection

Checks the /api/v1/payment endpoint on a Payram server using baseUrl and apiKey. If they are not provided, returns a .env template you can add to your workspace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`apiKey`	No	Your Payram API key from the dashboard. If not provided, uses PAYRAM_API_KEY from environment.
`baseUrl`	No	The base URL of your Payram server (e.g., https://your-server.example). If not provided, uses PAYRAM_BASE_URL from environment.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`baseUrl`	Yes
`statusCode`	Yes
`errorMessage`	No
`payramVersion`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the fallback behavior (returning an .env template when params are missing) and implies a read-only network check, but it doesn't explicitly state side effects, success/failure behavior, or auth requirements beyond using the API key.

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 two sentences, with the primary action stated first and the conditional fallback second. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has an output schema and only two optional parameters, and the description covers the main purpose and fallback. It is complete for a connectivity check, though it doesn't explicitly relate to sibling tools or describe the output format—both are covered by external schema/context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about what happens when parameters are not provided, which complements the schema's explanatory text and clarifies the optionality of both parameters.

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 function: it checks a specific endpoint (/api/v1/payment) on a Payram server using baseUrl and apiKey. The verb 'Checks' and the resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that check project readiness or node sync.

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 when to use the tool: to verify connectivity to a Payram server and to receive an .env template if credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear from the fallback behavior.

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?