Pulse MCP Server

list_received_payments

Retrieve and view all received payments from payment links to track transaction history and monitor revenue.

Instructions

List all received payments across all payment links

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_received_payments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results to return (default 20)
`offset`	No	Number of results to skip

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Feb 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'list all received payments' but doesn't cover aspects like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves sensitive financial data.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of listing financial payments with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits like data sensitivity or access controls, which are critical for such a tool in a payment system context.

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 100%, with both 'limit' and 'offset' parameters well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining how pagination works or default values beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'received payments' with scope 'across all payment links', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_payment_intents' or 'list_invoices', which might also list payment-related data, so it's not fully specific to sibling context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_payment_intents' or 'get_invoice', nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states what it does without context for selection among similar tools.

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