Civitatis MCP Server and API by Cotlet

List payouts in Civitatis

civitatis_list_payouts

Read-onlyIdempotent

List payouts in the user's own Civitatis account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Civitatis step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Civitatis Cloud Browser. Civitatis's official API: Civitatis has no public API for suppliers (checked 11 Oct 2026).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "civitatis_list_payouts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new context by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and that no supplier-facing public API exists (with a check date). This is real behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about output shape beyond 'step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The lead sentence is front-loaded and the key constraint (opens nothing, follow up with browser tools) comes early. However, 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the trailing 'Civitatis's official API:' fragment is grammatically awkward and repetitive with the sentence it follows.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so at a high level (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) plus the crucial handoff to the browser tools. It could say more about whether any actual payout figures are included, which is the main open question for an agent expecting 'list payouts' to yield data.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema coverage figure is trivially 100% for an empty object.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (list payouts in the user's Civitatis account) and clarifies the actual mechanism: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the listing itself. The only friction is the tension between the name 'list_payouts' and the disclosure that it returns a how-to, which takes a second read to reconcile.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool as step one of a two-step flow: read the guide here, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Civitatis Cloud Browser. It does not name when-not-to-use cases, but with zero parameters and a single obvious follow-up path the routing guidance is adequate.

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

All Civitatis MCP Server and API by Cotlet 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?