Skip to main content
Glama
Tunzaa

Tunzaa MCP Server

Official
by Tunzaa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

handle_callback

Simulate or process Malipo webhook callback payloads to test and ground your payment integration code with real examples.

Instructions

Simulate or handle the callback payload sent by Malipo to your webhook. Essential for grounding your webhook integration code with real payload examples.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountNoThe amount confirmed by the provider as a decimal string (e.g., '1500.00').
statusYesThe final status of the payment (e.g., 'COMPLETED', 'FAILED', 'CANCELLED').
timestampNoThe event datetime as a string, e.g. '2024-11-25 16:45:10'.
x_signatureNoThe X-Signature header value. HMAC-SHA256 of the JSON payload with alphabetically sorted keys (Python json.dumps(payload, sort_keys=True) format) using your API secret key.
payment_dateNoThe date and time the payment was completed, e.g. '2024-11-25 14:30:45'.
reference_idNoYour system's unique order reference.
transaction_idYesThe unique Malipo transaction ID sent in the webhook.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / amount / description
      Previous value: -"The amount confirmed by the provider."New value: +"The amount confirmed by the provider as a decimal string (e.g., '1500.00')."
    • changedInput schema / properties / payment_date / description
      Previous value: -"The date the payment was completed."New value: +"The date and time the payment was completed, e.g. '2024-11-25 14:30:45'."
    • changedInput schema / properties / timestamp / description
      Previous value: -"UNIX timestamp of the event."New value: +"The event datetime as a string, e.g. '2024-11-25 16:45:10'."
    • changedInput schema / properties / transaction_id / description
      Previous value: -"The unique Tunzaa transaction ID sent in the webhook."New value: +"The unique Malipo transaction ID sent in the webhook."
    • addedInput schema / properties / x_signature
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The X-Signature header value. HMAC-SHA256 of the JSON payload with alphabetically sorted keys (Python json.dumps(payload, sort_keys=True) format) using your API secret key.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states whether the tool has side effects, whether it validates x_signature, whether 'handle' processes real events or only simulates, or what it returns. The simulate/handle ambiguity leaves the mutation profile entirely undisclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose statement and free of padding. Slightly weakened by the unresolved 'simulate or handle' phrasing, which adds ambiguity rather than information.

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?

With seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to explain return behavior and side effects, and it does neither. An agent has no basis to decide whether calling this mutates state, what it produces, or how simulation differs from real handling.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven fields, including the x_signature HMAC scheme and timestamp formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (the callback payload Malipo sends to your webhook) but pairs two different verbs, 'simulate' and 'handle,' without clarifying which behavior the tool actually performs. An agent cannot tell whether this generates a sample payload or processes a real one. It is distinct from the payment/installment siblings, but the core action remains ambiguous.

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?

'Essential for grounding your webhook integration code with real payload examples' implies a usage context (integration development), but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not guidance. It is implied usage rather than actionable routing.

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