Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MoneyMatter

by io.github.letehaha
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_refund_links

Read-only

List every refund link touching a transaction, on either side (as the refund or as the original). Each link has refundTxId, originalTxId (null for a purchase outside the app), splitId, and amount: the share of the refund transaction's amount in the refund's currency; null means the whole 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": {
      "transactionId": "<transactionId>"
    },
    "name": "get_refund_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transactionIdYesID of a transaction on either side of the links (the refund or the original)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / transactionId / pattern
      Removed value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower, and the description goes further by enumerating the returned fields and explaining the null semantics for originalTxId and amount. It does not state ordering, result limits, or behavior when the transaction has no links, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly packed sentences: the scope statement comes first, then a compact field-by-field explanation. Every clause carries information an agent needs, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the shape of each returned link and the meaning of nulls. For a single-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly complete; only ordering/limit behavior and the no-links case are left unaddressed.

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% and the schema already explains that transactionId may be either the refund or the original. The description restates the same "either side" idea, adding no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("List every refund link touching a transaction") and adds the key scope detail that it matches on either side of the link. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_transactions or link_refund, though it never explicitly names get_refunds or get_transaction_links as the alternatives an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting refund linkage around one transaction. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no mention of the closely named siblings (get_refunds, get_transaction_links, link_refund/unlink_refund) that would make the choice unambiguous.

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

All MoneyMatter toolsInspect
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