Vybe Pay MCP

Create invoice

create_invoice

Create a get-paid invoice for the spend-key owner. Returns a /r/{publicId} URL. Another agent can call pay_invoice with that URL; a human opening the link sees Vybe crypto checkout. Does not move money and does not require Approve. After sharing, call get_invoice with the publicId to check if it was paid before taking a follow-up action. Related: get_invoice, list_invoices, pay_invoice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "create_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`memo`	No	Short note shown on /r/ and on the payer’s Approve card.
`token`	No	Stablecoin. Defaults to usdc.
`amount`	Yes	Invoice face amount as a decimal string, e.g. 25 or 5.50.
`feePayer`	No	Who absorbs the platform fee when fees are live. creator (default) or client.
`expiresInHours`	No	Hours until expiry. Defaults to 72.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`url`	No
`memo`	No
`token`	No
`amount`	No
`status`	No
`message`	No
`publicId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool does not move money and does not require an Approve step, and that a human opening the link sees a Vybe crypto checkout – valuable context for a creating tool. It does not restate idempotency behavior (annotations already set idempotentHint=false), but the added operational context is substantial.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose and return value are front-loaded, and the follow-up workflow follows logically. The trailing "Related:" list partly repeats tools already named in the body, but overall the text is dense and earns its length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a moderate-complexity creation tool with a full output schema, the description still supplies what an agent needs: the return URL shape, the payer/checkout experience, the no-money-movement guarantee, and the post-creation verification step. Nothing material is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the five parameters (amount, memo, token, feePayer, expiresInHours) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Create a get-paid invoice") and states the resulting artifact (a /r/{publicId} URL). It is immediately distinguishable from pay_invoice (which consumes that URL) and get_invoice (which checks payment status).

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 routes the agent: share the URL so another agent can call pay_invoice, and call get_invoice with the publicId afterward to check payment before any follow-up action. It also names the related siblings (get_invoice, list_invoices, pay_invoice) at the end. When-to-use and what-to-do-next are both spelled out.

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

All Vybe Pay MCP 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?