@yawlabs/lemonsqueezy-mcp

ls_refund_order

Destructive

Issue an irreversible refund for a LemonSqueezy order using its order ID and amount in cents. Specify the exact amount to return to the customer.

Instructions

Issue a refund for an order. This is irreversible — the refund amount is in cents (e.g. 1000 = $10.00).

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": {
      "orderId": "<orderId>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "ls_refund_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes	Refund amount in cents (e.g. 1000 = $10.00)
`orderId`	Yes	The order ID to refund

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.10May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description notes irreversibility, which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not detail side effects such as whether refunds are partial or full, payment method handling, or further consequences. The annotation already indicates destructiveness, so the description adds modest context.

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: two sentences that state the purpose and a critical behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and wastes no words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple refund tool with two well-documented parameters and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral trait (irreversibility). It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists. It might benefit from mentioning prerequisites (e.g., order status), but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

Both parameters (orderId, amount) have descriptions in the schema that fully explain their meaning. The description's example for amount ('e.g. 1000 = $10.00') merely reinforces the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Issue a refund for an order') and the resource (an order). The title 'Refund order' reinforces this. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ls_refund_subscription_invoice by focusing on orders.

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?

The description includes the warning 'This is irreversible' which implies careful use, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ls_refund_subscription_invoice or ls_cancel_subscription. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server