Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Podyx MCP

Podyx MCP

by Studio-Red-Barcelona
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

podyx_aftercare_addon

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves an addon purchase by ID for a read-only preview of payment, approval, and fulfillment status, without reserving a slot or locking a price.

Instructions

Addon GET /api/v2/addon-purchases/{id}. Current key authority and stored tenant ownership apply. Customer policies differ from explicit staff actions. Acceptance freezes the target and selection; GET states actual payment, approval and fulfillment. Provider instructions are fetched separately after preparation; external money is reported by the studio. Read/preview only. Follow all pagination; a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "podyx_aftercare_addon"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent read; the description adds tenant ownership/key authority context and says results reflect actual payment, approval and fulfillment. However, several behavioral statements are cryptic and seem to refer to adjacent workflows rather than this GET, and the pagination instruction is incongruous for an ID-based endpoint.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The endpoint is front-loaded, but it is followed by several policy-heavy sentences, including obscure lines about key authority, customer policies, acceptance, and external money. Much of this is not clearly actionable for this GET and dilutes the core instruction.

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 read-only detail endpoint with no output schema, the description should make the returned addon-purchase state and any required auth context clear. It gestures at payment, approval, fulfillment, and tenant ownership, but does not give the agent a coherent model of the response.

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?

There is only one required path parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to explain it. The endpoint template identifies {id} as the addon-purchase identifier, but the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond that template, such as the nested path object or identifier expectations.

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 lead phrase identifies a GET against /api/v2/addon-purchases/{id}, so an agent can infer retrieval of one addon purchase. It does not distinguish this from sibling detail tools such as podyx_get_addon or podyx_get_purchase, and 'Addon GET' is not a clean verb-resource statement.

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?

Beyond 'Read/preview only' and scattered notes about quotes not reserving slots, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this detail endpoint rather than sibling list/detail or aftercare preview tools. The note that provider instructions are fetched separately does not help route the agent.

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