helloasso_get_paymentRetrieve detailed payment information by ID, including amount, state, payer, order, and refund operations, to inspect or verify a HelloAsso payment.
Detailed payment by id: amount, state, payer, order, refund operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paymentId | Yes | Payment id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the returned data (amount, state, payer, order, refund operations), which compensates for the absent output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence with the key information (id-based lookup plus returned fields) front-loaded. Nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both the lookup key and the shape of the response. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior for an unknown id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single paymentId parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond 'by id', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Detailed payment by id') and previews the payload ('amount, state, payer, order, refund operations'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from helloasso_list_payments by requiring an id, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: 'by id' signals you need a payment identifier, which suggests fetching detail for a known payment rather than browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use versus helloasso_list_payments or helloasso_get_order, and no prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.