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 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no risk of confusion with other tools.
The single tool name 'refund_eligibility' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent with MCP conventions.
A single tool is on the low end but may be appropriate if the server's purpose is highly focused solely on eligibility checks.
The tool only evaluates eligibility; missing steps like initiating a refund, checking status, or handling appeals leaves significant gaps for a refund workflow.
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?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the key behavioral detail that the tool returns UNKNOWN when required conditions are absent or vendor approval/policy review is needed, which goes beyond annotation information.
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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral condition (UNKNOWN). No redundant information is present.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown but referenced) and 100% parameter coverage. The description covers the core behavior and edge cases (UNKNOWN). While it doesn't detail return values, the output schema handles that. Slight missing detail on eligibility outcomes beyond UNKNOWN, but overall complete enough.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions are sufficient for parameter understanding.
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. It uses specific verbs ('Evaluate') and identifies the resource ('subscription refund eligibility'). The behavior when returning UNKNOWN is explicitly mentioned, providing full purpose clarity.
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 usage for checking refund eligibility and specifies 'US consumer subscription', which sets context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of exclusions is acceptable.
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!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.