RunOnProof

authorize_uk_vendor_payment_detail_change

Read-onlyIdempotent

Paid x402 UK tool for gb.vendor.payment_detail_change.authorize.v1 (LIMITED). Claims are limited to the named official sources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`challenge`	Yes
`company_number`	Yes	Companies House company number, including any two-letter prefix when applicable.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Caller-generated key. Send the identical value in the Idempotency-Key header.
`current_payee_fingerprint`	Yes	Opaque caller-generated fingerprint; never send raw bank-account details.
`proposed_payee_fingerprint`	Yes	Opaque caller-generated fingerprint; never send raw bank-account details.
`prior_authorization_reference`	Yes	Reference to the currently approved vendor/payee binding.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`policy`	Yes
`result`	Yes	Offer-specific facts and machine-action inputs; interpret with decision, coverage and limitations.
`payment`	Yes
`coverage`	Yes	Country, population and explicit coverage limitations.
`decision`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes	Source-scoped evidence references; absence is never a clean finding.
`replayed`	No
`conditions`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes
`delivery_id`	No
`limitations`	Yes
`valid_as_of`	Yes
`valid_until`	Yes
`execution_id`	No
`reason_codes`	Yes
`authorization`	Yes
`source_health`	Yes
`machine_action`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes
`economic_activity`	Yes
`product_or_solution`	Yes
`required_information`	Yes

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds 'Paid' (monetary cost) and 'LIMITED' scope, but 'named official sources' is undefined and the meaning of 'Claims' is ambiguous, limiting extra behavioral insight. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences but is not front-loaded or clear. The cryptic phrasing and undefined terms don't earn their place; conciseness should support clarity, not obscure it.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With a complex nested challenge object, 6 required parameters, and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, the meaning of 'LIMITED' and 'named official sources', or how it fits into the vendor payment change workflow, making proper invocation unlikely.

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 83% and already documents each parameter well. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies; it neither clarifies relationships nor compensates for any gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description restates the endpoint name in cryptic terms without stating the tool's actual action. 'Claims are limited to the named official sources' is vague and does not clarify what the tool does or how it differs from siblings like authorize_uk_business_payment or continue_vendor_authorization.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to related tools such as run_uk_vendor_change_continuous_authorization, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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

All RunOnProof tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools appear to address the same action with only country or payment-model differences, such as company_check/run_uk_company_check, approve_supplier/approve_uk_supplier, authorize_payment/run_uk_payment_authorization, and screen_restricted_party/screen_restricted_business_party. Even with descriptions, an agent will struggle to pick the intended tool reliably.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes bare global verbs (company_check, approve_supplier, authorize_payment) with UK-prefixed variants (run_uk_company_check, approve_uk_supplier, authorize_uk_business_payment), plus free-form names like counterfactual, preflight, quote, and capabilities. There is no single consistent verb_noun or country-modifier convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

46 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface, and the set carries heavy duplication through global/UK/free/paid variants. While the domain may justify multiple country-specific operations, the tool count itself will overwhelm agents and make selection harder.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main compliance lifecycle well: discovery (capabilities, preflight, quote, resolve_agent_intent), verification, supplier approval, payment authorization, invoice matching, passport issuance/refresh, and verification receipts. Minor gaps exist around explicit cancellation/revocation or list/search operations, but core workflows have no major dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?