Vybe Pay MCP

Use paid Collect offering

use_paid_offering

After a Collect pay is settled (status paid or trial), use this tool with the publicId from pay_offering. It branches by offering type: research/asset returns the file; MCP lists seller tools (omit toolName) or runs one (pass toolName + toolArguments); API proxies method+path(+body) through Vybe. Prefer this over inventing HTTP calls or scraping marketplace HTML. Related: pay_offering, list_recent_pays, fetch_paid_content.

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": {
      "publicId": "<publicId>"
    },
    "name": "use_paid_offering"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	API only: JSON body for POST/PUT/PATCH.
`path`	No	API only: path under the offering invoke base, e.g. /v1/scan.
`method`	No	API only: HTTP method, e.g. GET or POST. Defaults to GET.
`publicId`	Yes	Vybe payment request id from pay_offering or list_recent_pays.
`toolName`	No	MCP only: seller tool name from the prior tools/list response.
`toolArguments`	No	MCP only: JSON arguments for tools/call.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`status`	No
`message`	No
`publicId`	No
`nextAction`	No
`offeringType`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantial context on top of that — the settlement precondition, that behavior branches by offering type, that it can execute seller tools or proxy arbitrary HTTP methods/paths, and which parameter combinations select which mode. That is exactly the mode-selection information an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the prerequisite, then the branch table, then the anti-pattern warning — good ordering with no filler. It is dense and notation-heavy ('method+path(+body)', 'research/asset'), which costs a little readability but not correctness.

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 tool with an output schema, six parameters, nested toolArguments, and open-world annotations, the description covers the missing pieces: prerequisite state, mode selection, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears absent.

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% and the schema's own object description already explains the MCP omit/pass toolName pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by tying publicId to its source tool and by grouping method/path/body as an API-only mode, but it repeats some of what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific verb and subject ('use this tool with the publicId from pay_offering') and then enumerates the four distinct behaviors behind it (research/asset file return, MCP list, MCP run, API proxy). An agent can distinguish this from pay_offering or fetch_paid_content without opening any schema.

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 states a hard precondition ('After a Collect pay is settled (status paid or trial)'), names where the required id comes from, gives per-branch invocation instructions, and explicitly rules out an alternative approach ('Prefer this over inventing HTTP calls or scraping marketplace HTML'). Related tools are listed so the agent can route correctly.

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?