Metadata MCP Connector

Get Payment Status

get_payment_status

Read-only

Check whether a specific credit payment has settled onto the account's ledger.

                USAGE INSTRUCTIONS FOR LLM:
                A credit purchase is charged immediately but CREDITED asynchronously — the money
                settles at the billing provider, whose webhook then reaches Metadata and records
                the credit. So "the card was charged" and "the balance is usable" are separate
                moments, usually seconds to a couple of minutes apart. This tool tells them
                apart for one specific payment.

                WHEN TO USE THIS TOOL:
                - The account owner has paid and given you a payment/transaction reference
                - You want to confirm a specific purchase landed, rather than just seeing that
                  the balance moved

                IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A REFERENCE, USE `get_credit_balance` INSTEAD. That is the
                normal way to wait for a top-up — you rarely need the reference.

                Poll every 20-30 seconds, not continuously. `status` is "pending" until it
                lands and "settled" after.

                EXPECTED RESPONSE FORMAT:
                {
                  "reference_id": "maxio:txn:987654",
                  "status": "settled",       // or "pending"
                  "settled": true,
                  "amount_usd": 50.0,        // null while pending
                  "settled_at": "2026-08-07T12:01:00",
                  "balance_usd": 37.5,       // the balance right now
                  "is_exhausted": false      // false means you can resume work
                }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reference_id`	Yes	The payment's reference, as reported when the purchase was made (e.g. 'maxio:txn:987654'). Found on the transaction row in get_credit_transactions.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly describes the asynchronous settlement model, pending vs settled status, recommended polling interval, and expected response format including null fields while pending.

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?

The description is longer than average, but it is well-structured into clear sections and every section serves a purpose: clarifying the async model, giving usage conditions, routing to an alternative, and providing the response format. It earns its length given the lack of an output schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's expected response format is essential and fully covers return values, status values, nullable fields, and current balance semantics. The tool is simple (one parameter), and the description leaves no operational gap: when to call it, how to call it, what to expect, and how often to poll.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents `reference_id` fully with an example and source location. The description adds further value by framing the reference in context, explaining it comes from a purchase, and showing it in the expected response format. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: checking whether a specific credit payment settled onto the account's ledger. It also differentiates this tool from the sibling get_credit_balance by emphasizing a specific payment/reference, making the distinction clear.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: when the account owner has paid and provided a reference, and when you want to confirm a specific purchase landed. It also explicitly directs the agent to use `get_credit_balance` instead when no reference exists, which is strong alternative routing.

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

All Metadata MCP Connector tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?