Podyx MCP

podyx_get_external_payment_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch an external payment report by UUID to review studio-collected payment facts, current coverage, and any action obligations. Read-only preview; no provider proof required.

Instructions

Get external payment report GET /api/v2/external-payment-reports/{id}. A studio collection UUID belongs to the tenant independently of each key-bound HTTP receipt. Report only studio-collected money; native Stripe/Square/cash tenders cannot be externally settled. No provider integration or provider proof is required. Inline complete booking selections use current customer policy. Booking refusal retains collected money and an action obligation; it never claims a refund happened. Same immutable collection facts are a financial no-op across keys; repair is a separate resolution command. GET separates original immutable acceptance from current coverage/action state. New commercial entry is deployment-disabled until external recovery/projection readiness; current authority and owned recovery remain required after disablement. 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_external_payment_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower. The description does add real behavioral context - that results are per-studio-collection rather than per-key, that GET separates original immutable acceptance from current coverage/action state, and that repair is a separate command - but the phrasing is dense, and it never says what the report actually returns.

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 stated up front, but the body is a wall of domain-policy sentences, several of which ('New commercial entry is deployment-disabled until external recovery/projection readiness', the quote/price line) have no bearing on invoking this GET.

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?

There is no output schema, and despite being verbose the description never outlines the report's shape, fields, or pagination mechanics. For an open-world financial reporting read with an undocumented parameter, key calling information is missing.

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 0% for a nested path.id object, so the description must carry the meaning. It only obliquely hints that the id is a 'studio collection UUID' and never states that it is the path parameter or how to obtain it.

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?

It leads with a specific verb+resource ('Get external payment report GET /api/v2/external-payment-reports/{id}'), which is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes this report from the many sibling read tools (podyx_get_external_refund, podyx_get_external_checkout, podyx_get_purchase), so the agent has to guess which read endpoint it needs.

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 explicit when-to-use section and no named alternative. 'Read/preview only' and 'Follow all pagination' are instructions, not selection guidance, and unrelated lines ('a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price') confuse rather than guide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server