Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_ap_payment

Triggers an accounts payable payment in Rocket Matter. Requires fields in JSON format.

Instructions

[Not in LCS /v1] Trigger an AP payment. Fails loudly.

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": {
      "fields_json": "<fields_json>"
    },
    "name": "create_ap_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fields_jsonYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description says 'Fails loudly' implying explicit error handling, but there are no annotations to fall back on. No mention of side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens on success. The behavioral profile is thin.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two sentences, but the first is a version note ('[Not in LCS /v1]') that may be irrelevant. The description is brief but could be restructured to front-load the core action and add essential details without increasing length.

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?

For a tool with 1 parameter (poorly explained) and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover input requirements, return behavior (output schema exists but not described), or error scenarios beyond 'fails loudly'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter 'fields_json' is a string with no documented format, structure, or example. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain what the JSON should contain (e.g., required fields, nested objects).

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 'Trigger an AP payment', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from 'create_payment' (likely client payments) and 'list_ap_payments'. However, it could be more precise about the context (e.g., 'Create a new accounts payable payment').

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'create_payment' or 'list_ap_payments'. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, when NOT to use it, or alternatives.

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