Skip to main content
Glama

weather_restore_credits

Credit a patron's ledger from a BTCPay-settled invoice.

RESTRICTED to the operator — the operator owns the books and is the only party who can issue a manual credit grant. Patrons who believe they paid but never got credits must escalate to the operator's support, who then invokes this tool on their behalf.

Use cases: cold-start vault races during check_payment, ncred delivery hiccups, patrons closing Top-Off sheets before settle, any infrastructure incident that left an invoice settled at BTCPay but uncredited on the operator's ledger.

Idempotent — if the invoice is already credited (in the patron's credited_invoices), returns success with credits_granted=0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dpop_tokenYesA kind-27235 Nostr event signed by the OPERATOR's nsec for this tool. Patron proofs are rejected.
invoice_idYesThe BTCPay invoice ID to verify and credit.
patron_npubYesThe patron's npub whose ledger receives the grant.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses idempotency and operator restriction. However, it does not detail failure modes, side effects beyond crediting, or rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Four well-structured paragraphs, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. High signal-to-noise ratio.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a recovery tool with 3 required params and an output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, restrictions, and idempotency. Sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context (operator-only dpop_token, idempotency) but does not significantly expand on the schema's parameter descriptions. Adequate.

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 clearly states 'Credit a patron's ledger from a BTCPay-settled invoice' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like weather_purchase_credits (normal flow) and weather_check_payment (payment check), making its unique role obvious.

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?

Explicitly restricts usage to the operator, lists concrete use cases (cold-start vault races, delivery hiccups, etc.), and tells patrons to escalate. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the restriction and context imply exceptional situations only.

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.