Crea un link de pago de Stripe. Cuesta 10 créditos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Monto en USD (ej: 19.99) | |
| currency | No | Moneda (default: usd) | |
| cancel_url | No | URL de redirección al cancelar | |
| stripe_key | Yes | Tu Stripe secret key (sk_live_... o sk_test_...) | |
| description | Yes | Nombre del producto o servicio | |
| success_url | No | URL de redirección al pagar |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cost of 10 credits, which is useful, but omits side effects, authentication requirements, success/failure behavior, or return value. As a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, using two short sentences to convey the primary purpose and the key constraint of cost. Every word serves a function with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the generated payment link URL) or any operational context beyond creation. The cost mention helps but leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Crea un link de pago') on a specific resource (Stripe payment link), making its purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_customer, list_payments, and verify_payment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when a Stripe payment link needs to be created, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling tools are distinct, but the description offers no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: customer creation, payment link creation, payment listing, and payment verification. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow the consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_customer, create_payment_link, list_payments, verify_payment). This is predictable and easy to remember.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a focused payment processing workflow. Each tool is essential and covers the core lifecycle without unnecessary bulk.
The tool set covers the essential flow: create customer, generate payment link, list payments, and verify status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no refund or customer update), but the core payment workflow is complete.