Skip to main content
Glama

TaScan

by io.github.snowbikemike
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

tascan_request_payment

Pledge a payment on a task list: when the list is verified complete (every task done + photo evidence on photo-required tasks), the payer automatically receives a Stripe pay link that routes the money DIRECTLY to the worker (0% TaScan fee). No money moves and no card is stored at pledge time. The worker must have completed payout onboarding (Get Paid on their profile).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memoNoWhat the payment is for (shown to the payer)
worker_idYesWorker who gets paid
payer_nameNo
payer_emailYesWho pays — receives the pay link on verification
amount_centsYesAmount in cents ($1 min, $10,000 max)
task_list_idYesTask list the payment is tied to
idempotency_keyNoB1: optional replay key (up to 1024 chars, no braces) sent verbatim as the Idempotency-Key header instead of a fresh one per call — a retried call with the SAME key replays the original pledge instead of creating a second one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "B1: optional replay key (up to 1024 chars, no braces) sent verbatim as the Idempotency-Key header instead of a fresh one per call — a retried call with the SAME key replays the original pledge instead of creating a second one.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description carries the real burden and delivers: no money moves or card stored at pledge time, funds route directly to the worker with a 0% TaScan fee, and the payer receives a Stripe pay link on verification. Minor gap: the annotations declare idempotentHint=false while the schema's idempotency_key offers replay semantics — the description never reconciles that.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight sentences with the trigger condition and the 'no money moves' reassurance front-loaded, and no filler. The parenthetical conditionals make it dense but every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers timing, prerequisite, fee model, and fund routing well. What it omits is the return value (what the pledge call yields) and failure modes, which an agent calling a payment-pledge tool would reasonably want.

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 86%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the idempotency_key replay behavior. The description reinforces the payer/worker money-routing relationship but adds no format, range, or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Pledge a payment on a task list') and immediately defines the trigger condition (list verified complete with photo evidence). This distinguishes it from siblings like tascan_create_invoice, tascan_list_payments, and tascan_verify_receipt, which an agent can rule out without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: at pledge time nothing moves, and the pay link is issued only when the list is verified complete. It also states a hard prerequisite (worker must have completed payout onboarding on their profile). It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All TaScan toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources