Skip to main content
Glama
VautlixDevelopment

Vaultix MCP Server

by VautlixDevelopment
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

vaultix_get_charge

Retrieve payment charge details by ID to view transaction status and information in the Vaultix payment system.

Instructions

Retrieve a charge by ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCharge ID (ch_...)

Implementation Reference

  • src/tools/index.ts:442-443 (handler)
    The handler implementation within the handleToolCall switch statement. It retrieves the charge details from the Vaultix API using the provided charge ID.
    case 'vaultix_get_charge':
  return client.get(`/charges/${args.id}`)
  • src/tools/index.ts:35-41 (schema)
    Input schema definition for the vaultix_get_charge tool, requiring a string 'id' parameter.
    inputSchema: {
  type: 'object',
  properties: {
    id: { type: 'string', description: 'Charge ID (ch_...)' },
  },
  required: ['id'],
},
  • src/tools/index.ts:32-42 (registration)
    Tool registration in the exported tools array, defining name, description, and input schema for MCP.
    {
  name: 'vaultix_get_charge',
  description: 'Retrieve a charge by ID',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      id: { type: 'string', description: 'Charge ID (ch_...)' },
    },
    required: ['id'],
  },
},

Tool Definition Quality

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key identifier. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'charge' is, what data will be returned, or any behavioral constraints. For a retrieval tool in what appears to be a payment processing system, more context would be helpful for the agent.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Charge ID (ch_...)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter details in the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('a charge by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'vaultix_list_charges' by specifying retrieval of a single charge rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a 'charge' represents in this context (e.g., payment transaction), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid charge ID), compare it to 'vaultix_list_charges' for bulk retrieval, or indicate scenarios where retrieving a single charge is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/VautlixDevelopment/mcpVaultix'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server