Skip to main content
Glama

lemonsqueezy

by io.usefulapi

Create checkout

lemonsqueezy_create_checkout
Destructive

WRITE: Create a hosted checkout / payment link for a store + variant. Returns the created checkout including its url (the shareable payment link). API: POST /checkouts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
store_idYesStore id (required).
expires_atNoISO 8601 date-time when the checkout link expires.
variant_idYesVariant id to sell (required).
custom_priceNoOverride price in cents (integer).
checkout_dataNoJSON:API checkout_data object (email, name, custom, discount_code, etc.).
product_optionsNoJSON:API product_options object (name, description, redirect_url, etc.).
checkout_optionsNoJSON:API checkout_options object (embed, media, button_color, etc.).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description explains the outcome (returns created checkout with url) and provides the API endpoint. The destructiveHint annotation aligns with the write operation. However, it does not detail potential side effects beyond creation, such as generating a shareable link or expiration behavior, which is partially covered by the schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Extremely concise: one sentence plus API endpoint. The key information is front-loaded with 'WRITE: Create a hosted checkout'. No unnecessary words.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the primary result (created checkout with url). It could mention more about the returned object's structure, but given the straightforward nature and the schema descriptions, it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond naming the key required fields (store and variant). With full schema coverage, baseline is 3; the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('create a hosted checkout / payment link'), specifies the resource ('store + variant'), and mentions the return value (the checkout with its 'url'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are read, list, update, or cancel operations.

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?

The 'WRITE' prefix implies this is for creation. While it does not explicitly list when to use vs alternatives, the sibling tools are all different operations. The context is clear enough that an agent would use this when needing to create a checkout link.

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

All lemonsqueezy toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (get vs list for each entity, plus specific write operations). Filtering parameters further distinguish list tools. No overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `lemonsqueezy_action_resource` pattern using lowercase and underscores. Actions are consistently get, list, create, cancel, or update.

Tool Count5/5

18 tools cover a broad set of resources (customers, orders, stores, subscriptions, discounts, license keys, prices, products, invoices, variants, checkouts) for a comprehensive e-commerce platform. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness3/5

While reading (list/get) is well-covered for most resources, creation and deletion are missing for many core entities (customers, products, orders, etc.), which may force agents to rely on external processes. Only subscriptions and checkouts have write support.

Resources