Captures the PayPal order after buyer approval.
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": {
"order_id": "<order_id>"
},
"name": "capture_paypal_payment"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the approval precondition but says nothing about this being a money-moving mutation, whether repeat captures are idempotent or error, partial capture amounts versus the authorized amount, or authorization expiry — all material for a financial capture tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key precondition sits where a reader will see it first. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a mutating financial operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an unannotated mutation tool with one undocumented required parameter and no output schema, the definition is too thin to call correctly in edge cases. An agent gets the happy-path purpose but no information on failure modes, idempotency, or the meaning of the order ID, all of which the description would need to supply.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single order_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not — it never states that order_id is the PayPal order identifier or which state the order must be in. The only hint ('order after buyer approval') is indirect and tied to the resource rather than the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Captures the PayPal order'), so the action is unambiguous. It offers no differentiation from siblings, though the listed siblings (press release, distribution report, order status) are far enough from a PayPal capture that confusion risk is low.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'After buyer approval' implies the lifecycle position where this tool applies, which is genuine usage context. It stops short of explicit guidance: no mention of what to do if the order is not yet approved, already captured, or expired, and no alternative tools or preconditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.