Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ninja MCP

Ninja MCP

by Khaled-Harthi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Pending Checkout Payment Methods

ninja_pending_payment_methods

Inspect saved pending checkout payment methods to evaluate available options before selecting a payment flow.

Instructions

Inspect methods for the saved pending checkout payment request before choosing any payment flow.

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": "ninja_pending_payment_methods"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. While 'inspect' suggests a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or what happens if no pending payment request exists. More detail would improve transparency.

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 sentence with 14 words, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description should detail what the tool returns. It says 'inspect methods' but does not specify the format, structure, or content of the output. For a simple inspection tool, this is a notable gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. According to guidelines, the baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description does not add parameter information (none needed).

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 uses a specific verb 'inspect' and resource 'methods for saved pending checkout payment request', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform payment actions (e.g., ninja_pay_saved_card, ninja_pay_wallet).

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 phrase 'before choosing any payment flow' provides clear context on when to use this tool (prior to payment method selection). It implies a sequential order but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, which is acceptable given the low complexity.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools