VideoGen

Request credit purchase refund

request_billing_refund

DestructiveIdempotent

Sensitive write: submit a support-reviewed refund request for this paid order. Obtain approval for the request. Requested does not mean approved, refunded or credits reversed. This operation never automatically issues a refund.

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": {
      "orderId": "<orderId>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "request_billing_refund"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	Yes
`orderId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	Yes	Payment and credit fulfillment state.
`seller`	No	Seller of record.
`teamId`	No	Beneficiary team id.
`credits`	No	Credits purchased by this order.
`orderId`	Yes	Client-generated order UUID.
`currency`	No	Order currency.
`revision`	Yes	Quote revision to approve when completing.
`taxMinor`	No	Tax in minor units.
`teamName`	No	Beneficiary team name.
`expiresAt`	No	Quote expiry in Unix seconds.
`feesMinor`	No	Fees in minor units.
`receiptUrl`	No	Receipt URL once paid.
`totalMinor`	No	Total to approve, in minor units.
`refundTerms`	No	Refund terms to show before approval.
`refundStatus`	No	Refund request status, separate from the payment state.
`discountMinor`	No	Discount in minor units.
`retryGuidance`	No	How to safely resolve or retry this order.
`subtotalMinor`	No	Subtotal in minor units.
`verificationUrl`	No	Secure verification continuation for the purchaser, when required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them: it clarifies that the operation creates a request, not a refund, that approval is required, and that credits are never automatically reversed. It does not mention rate limits, retry semantics, or what a duplicate request returns, but the critical behavioral expectation is well covered.

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 'Sensitive write' warning, then the core action, then the disclaimers. Every sentence carries meaning and there is no filler, though the staccato 'Requested does not mean approved, refunded or credits reversed' could be merged more smoothly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations plus description together cover safety and effect semantics. What is missing is guidance on the two required inputs and on eligibility of the order, which for a two-parameter, zero-coverage schema leaves the agent guessing at argument meaning.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both parameters (orderId and reason) are documented only by type, format, and length constraints. The description says nothing about what the reason field should contain, whether it is user-facing, or whether orderId must reference a completed paid order. With zero schema coverage this is a notable gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'submit a support-reviewed refund request for this paid order.' This clearly distinguishes a refund request from sibling tools like cancel_billing_order or get_billing_order, though those siblings are not named explicitly. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'Sensitive write' and 'support-reviewed' imply this is for paid orders needing human approval, and it warns that submission is not approval. However, it never states when to choose this over cancel_billing_order, nor any preconditions such as order state or whether the order must be completed and paid. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

All VideoGen 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.