Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Refund eligibility notary for US subscriptions. Returns ALLOWED/DENIED/UNKNOWN.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
decidefyi/decide
GitHub Stars
1
Server Listing
decide

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.5/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly stated and unique.

Naming Consistency4/5

The single tool name 'refund_eligibility' is descriptive and follows a noun-style pattern, which is acceptable. Since there is only one tool, consistency is inherently maintained, though it does not follow a verb_noun convention.

Tool Count3/5

A single tool is borderline for a service called 'refund-decide'. It could be sufficient for a narrow decision endpoint, but the server feels thin for anything beyond basic eligibility checks.

Completeness2/5

The server offers only a single evaluation tool with no supporting operations (e.g., rule inspection, manual review, or decision history). This is a significant gap for a refund decision service, as there is no way to understand or act on the UNKNOWN outcome.

Available Tools

1 tool
refund_eligibilityCheck refund eligibilityA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Evaluate a US consumer subscription refund against versioned source-backed rules. Returns UNKNOWN when required conditions are absent or the vendor requires approval or manual policy review.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYesPlan type. Currently only 'individual' plans are supported.
regionYesRegion code. Currently only 'US' is supported.
vendorYesVendor identifier (lowercase, underscore-separated).
days_since_purchaseYesNumber of days since the subscription was purchased.
qualifying_conditions_metNoRequired when the vendor policy has source-specific conditions such as first purchase, unused benefits, or an eligible annual plan.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
codeYes
vendorNo
messageYes
verdictYes
refundableNo
source_hashNo
window_daysNo
evaluated_atNo
rules_versionNo
policy_versionNo
rulebook_resultNo
required_contextNo
policy_source_urlNo
days_since_purchaseNo
policy_last_checkedNo
policy_source_notesNo
policy_last_verified_utcNo
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that the tool returns UNKNOWN when required conditions are absent or when the vendor requires approval/manual policy review. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, providing the agent with actionable edge-case behavior that is not otherwise stated.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes the most important edge-case behavior. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the presence of a rich input schema, a clear output schema (indicated by 'has output schema: true'), and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance (UNKNOWN return cases). The tool is simple enough that this description, combined with the structured data, is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including enums and required fields. The description itself does not add detailed parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning 'required conditions', which maps to the optional qualifying_conditions_met parameter. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool evaluates a US consumer subscription refund against versioned source-backed rules, using a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('refund'). It also distinguishes the tool's scope by mentioning 'US consumer subscription' and 'versioned source-backed rules', which aligns with the title 'Check refund eligibility' and the schema constraints.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: for evaluating US consumer subscription refunds against source-backed rules. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but given there are no sibling tools and the context is well-defined, this is a strong usage guideline without needing exclusions.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Servers

View all MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.