Podyx MCP

podyx_list_external_refund_collections

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists external refund collections for a checkout ID so you can review current money and cancellation state; pagination returns all records for read-only auditing.

Instructions

List external refund collections GET /api/v2/external-checkouts/{id}/collections. Acceptance is an immutable delivery receipt. A refund request reserves a real outstanding obligation; only a studio report of actual success counts returned money. Studio refund UUIDs are independent from HTTP keys. Replacements explicitly name a failed or reversed attempt in the identical frozen scope and share its obligation. GET exposes current money and cancellation state. Recovery requires current key, tenant and owning-resource authority even after new commercial entry is disabled. Provider IDs are never accepted or manufactured. 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_list_external_refund_collections"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`query`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: pagination is mandatory, authorization needs the current key plus tenant and owning-resource authority even after commercial entry is disabled, and provider IDs are never accepted. That is substantive disclosure, though the returned payload shape is only hinted at.

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?

After the first sentence the text becomes a dense stream of domain jargon ('Acceptance is an immutable delivery receipt', 'identical frozen scope', 'commercial entry is disabled') that is not organized around the agent's decision. Several sentences appear to encode business rules irrelevant to invoking this endpoint, hurting front-loading and scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only loosely indicates what is returned ('current money and cancellation state'), so return-value expectations remain thin. Combined with the undocumented path and pagination parameters, it is adequate in spirit but incomplete for an agent to call it correctly without opening the schema.

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% and the description never explains the required path.id UUID, the 'after' cursor, or the 1-100 limit bounds. Only the generic instruction to follow all pagination gestures at the query parameters, leaving the agent to read the raw schema for the rest.

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 opening sentence gives a concrete verb and resource ('List external refund collections') plus the underlying path, and clarifies that the operation is read/preview only. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling podyx_get_external_refund, so an agent still has to infer list-vs-single from the schema.

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?

Useful constraints are present (read/preview only, follow all pagination, requires current key and owning-resource authority), which implies when the tool is valid. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over podyx_get_external_refund or the payment-report siblings, and no when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server