refund-decide
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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly stated and unique.
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.
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.
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 toolrefund_eligibilityCheck refund eligibilityARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | Plan type. Currently only 'individual' plans are supported. | |
| region | Yes | Region code. Currently only 'US' is supported. | |
| vendor | Yes | Vendor identifier (lowercase, underscore-separated). | |
| days_since_purchase | Yes | Number of days since the subscription was purchased. | |
| qualifying_conditions_met | No | Required when the vendor policy has source-specific conditions such as first purchase, unused benefits, or an eligible annual plan. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | |
| vendor | No | |
| message | Yes | |
| verdict | Yes | |
| refundable | No | |
| source_hash | No | |
| window_days | No | |
| evaluated_at | No | |
| rules_version | No | |
| policy_version | No | |
| rulebook_result | No | |
| required_context | No | |
| policy_source_url | No | |
| days_since_purchase | No | |
| policy_last_checked | No | |
| policy_source_notes | No | |
| policy_last_verified_utc | No |
Tool Definition Quality
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceDeterministically evaluates whether a proposed agent spend action matches a supplied policy, returning ELIGIBLE, DENY, or STEP_UP with stable reason codes. Provides local policy evidence only, not payment authorization.1347MIT
- Flicense-qualityBmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to resolve carrier-exception refunds, auto-executing a bounded refund when a strict policy passes or creating a manager-approval escalation otherwise, with idempotent and concurrency-safe operations.
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceHelps merchants resolve credit card disputes by searching VISA guidelines and checking dispute history to generate structured recommendations.2

EVIDIQ Rubric MCPofficial
Alicense-qualityBmaintenanceDetermines whether a deliverable meets its contract using deterministic rules, criteria, and signed attestations.1MIT
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.