call_service
Call a service and pay automatically via Stripe per use
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| service_id | Yes |
run.pay
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses automatic payment per use but lacks details on failure handling, response format, or side effects. Critical behavioral traits like what happens if payment fails or if the service is not found are missing.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence, which is efficient. However, it sacrifices necessary detail in favor of brevity. For a tool with three parameters and complex behavior, slightly more length would be justified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three required parameters (one a nested object) and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not clarify the payload structure, expected input formats, or any return values, leaving the agent without essential context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'payload' should contain, the role of 'agent_id', or how 'service_id' is used. With three required parameters, this is a major gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 states 'Call a service and pay automatically via Stripe per use,' which clearly indicates the tool's primary action (calling a service) and its key feature (automatic payment). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_services' by focusing on execution rather than listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for services requiring payment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_services. There is no guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists available services, the other calls a service and processes payment. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_services and call_service. The naming convention is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With only two tools, the server feels minimal for a marketplace and payment service. While it covers basic listing and purchase, more tools (e.g., for service details, cancellations) would be expected.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface has significant gaps: there is no way to view service details beyond listing, no cancellation, no user account management, and no means to handle errors or refunds. Essential lifecycle operations are missing.