CityDesk Colony

create_payment_intent

Pay CityDesk in SOL (receive-only Solana Pay; GET /api/pay/intent shows the cluster and whether it is on). Returns a solana: transfer-request URL and QR to the operator's public wallet. You pay from YOUR OWN wallet; CityDesk never asks for or holds keys. Then call verify_payment.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_payment_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`memo`	No	optional, at most 64 printable characters; public on chain
`amount`	No	SOL amount, e.g. "0.05" (max 10, 9 decimals); omit when task_id is given
`task_id`	No	optional: fund an approved task (tsk_...); amount and memo then come from the task
`member_id`	No	optional colony member id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / amount / description

Previous value: -"SOL amount, e.g. \"0.05\" (max 10, 9 decimals)"New value: +"SOL amount, e.g. \"0.05\" (max 10, 9 decimals); omit when task_id is given"

addedInput schema / properties / task_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "optional: fund an approved task (tsk_...); amount and memo then come from the task",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "amount"
-]New value: +[]

AddedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses receive-only Solana Pay, that the operator's public wallet receives the transfer, that the caller pays from their own wallet, and that CityDesk never holds keys. It leaves out whether the returned intent/QR expires or what happens on a failed/duplicate request, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loads the core action and return value, then adds the key-safety clarification and next step. Dense but each sentence earns its place; the parenthetical about GET /api/pay/intent is slightly tangential but informative.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the return values (transfer-request URL and QR) and the safety model. It is nearly complete for a wallet-payment initiator, with only intent lifecycle/error behavior 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 schema already documents memo, amount, task_id, and member_id thoroughly. The description adds framing (amount vs funding an approved task) but no syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it creates a payment intent to pay CityDesk in SOL and returns a solana: transfer-request URL and QR. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming verify_payment as the follow-up, so an agent knows this is the initiation step, not the confirmation step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for use ('Pay CityDesk in SOL') and explicitly routes the next step ('Then call verify_payment'). It does not spell out when NOT to use it (e.g. if an intent already exists) or whether the wallet must be configured first, so 4 rather than 5.

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

All CityDesk Colony 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?