Skip to main content
Glama
Safefy-Pay

Safefy MCP

Official
by Safefy-Pay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List Transactions

safefy_payment_list_transactions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and filter Safefy payment transactions by status, payment method, date range, customer ID, or external ID, with pagination for accurate reporting.

Instructions

Lista suas transacoes com filtros.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
methodNo
statusNo
endDateNoISO 8601 datetime. Ex: 2026-03-04T12:30:00Z
pageSizeNo
startDateNoISO 8601 datetime. Ex: 2026-03-04T12:30:00Z
customerIdNo
externalIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / endDate / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$"New value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / startDate / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$"New value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$"
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no authentication/prerequisite context, no indication of result size or rate limits for a listing endpoint.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but its brevity is under-specification rather than effective concision for an 8-parameter endpoint. It is appropriately short, not appropriately informative.

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 8 optional parameters, a 25% schema coverage rate, no output schema, and many list/get siblings, one vague sentence is insufficient. An agent lacks enough to decide when this is the right call or how the filters compose.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% across 8 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It generically references 'filters' but never names method, status, startDate/endDate, customerId, externalId, page, or pageSize, leaving most parameters documented only by their types and enums.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description ('Lista suas transacoes com filtros') names a verb (list) and resource (transactions), so the basic purpose is clear. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like safefy_payment_list_orders, safefy_payment_list_cashouts, or safefy_payment_get_transaction, and the Portuguese phrasing against English tool/title naming adds friction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this list tool versus a single-record lookup such as safefy_payment_get_transaction, nor versus the other list_* siblings. The mention of 'filtros' implies filtering is possible but never states which filters matter or when to apply them.

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