Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Paymos MCP Server

Paymos MCP Server

Official
by Paymos-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Block payment channel

block_payment_channel

Blocks a Sandbox payment channel by its channel ID to stop further payments. Use it to halt a channel's activity during payment integration testing.

Instructions

Set a Sandbox payment channel's status to blocked.

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": {
      "payment_channel_id": "<payment_channel_id>"
    },
    "name": "block_payment_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payment_channel_idYesPayment channel ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.4.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not state whether blocking is reversible, idempotent, permission-gated, or what happens to any in-flight payments, deposits, or invoices on the channel.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail an agent needs.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimal but not wrong. It is missing the effect of the state change and its reversibility, which matter more here than any parameter detail.

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% for the single required payment_channel_id, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Set a Sandbox payment channel's status to blocked") and distinguishes itself implicitly from the sibling unblock_payment_channel. The "Sandbox" qualifier usefully narrows where this applies, but the description never names the counterpart tool.

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?

Says what it does but not when to choose it: no guidance on prerequisites, no mention of unblock_payment_channel as the reversal, and no note on whether an active channel with pending deposits/invoices can be blocked.

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