Skip to main content
Glama

Laso Finance

by finance.laso
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

update_payment_recipient

Rename or archive a saved recipient (free)

Renames a saved Venmo or PayPal recipient, archives it, or both. Provide at least one of display_name or archived.

Archiving hides an entry from the default list while keeping its history, which is the reversible way to retire a recipient. Prefer it over DELETE.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
archivedNoMust be a boolean. A wrong type returns a terminal 400 with code `invalid_archived`.
platformYesPayment platform the recipient is saved under.
auth_tokenNoLaso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.
display_nameNoMust be a string. A wrong type returns a terminal 400 with code `invalid_display_name`.
recipient_idYesThe entry's `recipient_id` from `GET /payment-recipients` (an opaque id, not the phone number or email).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / platform / description
      Added value: +"Payment platform the recipient is saved under."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / platform / description
      Removed value: -"Payment platform the recipient is saved under."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "archived": {
-      "type": [
-        "boolean",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "display_name": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "platform": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "recipient_id": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "user_id": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses that archiving hides the entry and keeps history, and that it is reversible. However, it does not mention potential side effects of renaming (e.g., impact on history), does not describe what the response looks like (no output schema), and does not note any permission or rate-limit requirements beyond the auth_token parameter already in the schema. Some gaps remain.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first line gives the purpose, and the next two sentences cover usage guidance and the key alternative. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage and the archived behavior. However, it omits return value expectations, potential side effects of renaming, and any mention of authorization beyond what's in the schema. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap, but the schema carries some of the burden (e.g., invalid type errors).

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 schema already describes all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the at-least-one constraint for display_name and archived, and by explaining the semantic effect of archived (hides from default list, keeps history). This goes beyond the schema's simple boolean description.

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 renames or archives a saved Venmo or PayPal recipient. It distinguishes from the sibling delete_payment_recipient by explicitly framing archiving as the reversible alternative, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to prefer this over DELETE for retiring a recipient, and explains that archiving is reversible while deletion is not. It also names the exact operation types (rename, archive, or both) and the requirement to provide at least one of display_name or archived, giving clear selection criteria.

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

All Laso Finance toolsInspect
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