Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Podyx MCP

Podyx MCP

by Studio-Red-Barcelona
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

podyx_get_checkout

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a checkout by ID to review instructions, payment amounts, booking approval, and fulfillment status before confirming or quoting. Read-only; a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price.

Instructions

Read current checkout instruction, money, booking approval and fulfillment GET /api/v2/checkouts/{id}. Studio-owned native checkout. Current key/account/public_api authority and tenant ownership apply on reads, writes and receipt replay. A permitted replacement studio key may recover a known checkout. Accepted obligations remain recoverable when headless new entry is disabled. Instructions are browser capabilities, never proof of settlement. Confirmation verifies the native provider. An uncertain provider outcome retains its frozen request identity; do not create another tender. Token payloads are never in receipts or job arguments. 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_get_checkout"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: key/account/public_api authority and tenant ownership apply on reads, a permitted replacement studio key may recover a known checkout, accepted obligations stay recoverable when headless entry is disabled, and token payloads never appear in receipts or job arguments. Some statements are dense to the point of ambiguity, but nothing contradicts the read-only annotation.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a run of terse, jargon-heavy assertions ('Instructions are browser capabilities, never proof of settlement') with no grouping into access, safety, and output concerns. Each sentence carries signal, yet the density makes key cautions easy to miss.

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 read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers access authority and payment-safety caveats well, and hints at returned content (instruction, money, approval, fulfillment). It never clarifies the actual response shape or what 'fulfillment' status values mean, which matters given the 0% schema coverage on the single id parameter.

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?

There is one nested parameter (path.id, UUID) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. The embedded endpoint path 'GET /api/v2/checkouts/{id}' implies that id names a checkout, but it adds no format, scoping, or failure semantics for an invalid or foreign-tenant id beyond the general ownership note.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: read the current checkout (instructions, money, booking approval, fulfillment) via GET /api/v2/checkouts/{id}, and pins it as the 'Studio-owned native checkout'. That distinguishes it from the external checkout sibling in spirit, though it never names podyx_get_external_checkout outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives real operating guidance for the risky path ('An uncertain provider outcome retains its frozen request identity; do not create another tender') and states 'Read/preview only'. It does not, however, say when to choose this tool over the external checkout or purchase lookups, so selection between siblings is left to inference.

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