Frontier-Compute/zcash-mcp

zap1_watch_receipt_invoice

Poll ZAP1 receipt-invoice status until payment or timeout. Returns public receipt status without scanning wallet state.

Instructions

Poll ZAP1 receipt-invoice status until paid or timeout. Returns public receipt status only; this server does not scan wallet state.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "invoice_id": "<invoice_id>"
    },
    "name": "zap1_watch_receipt_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoice_id`	Yes	Invoice ID returned by zap1_create_receipt_invoice
`timeout_seconds`	No	Maximum seconds to wait for payment (default 300)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.0May 24, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses polling behavior (until paid or timeout), that it returns only public receipt status, and that it does not scan wallet state. However, it does not clarify timeout behavior (e.g., error vs. status on timeout).

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a crucial limitation. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could specify return value structure. It mentions 'public receipt status' but is vague. However, it covers the essential context for a polling tool with timeout. Sibling tools provide some complementary 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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond hinting at timeout usage. It does not detail format or constraints beyond schema defaults.

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 clearly states the tool polls receipt-invoice status until paid or timeout, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns only public receipt status and does not scan wallet state.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use after invoice creation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like zap1_wallet_receipt_request. It mentions server limitations but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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