Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BharatPay MCP

BharatPay MCP

by angelina10504
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

format_inr

Formats INR amounts using Indian numbering (lakh/crore grouping) and returns word form. Optionally accepts paise input.

Instructions

Format an INR amount in Indian numbering conventions (lakh/crore grouping with comma every two digits after the first three) and return word form. Set paise=True if amount is in paise (Razorpay API style, where 1 INR = 100 paise).

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": {
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "format_inr"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paiseNoIf True, treat amount as paise.
amountYesNumber to format.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility. It discloses the formatting behavior (lakh/crore grouping, word form) and the paise toggle. It could be more explicit about the exact return format (e.g., string structure), but overall it gives good insight.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first sentence states the main purpose and formatting style, second explains the optional parameter. No redundancy.

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 formatting tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could elaborate on the exact output structure (e.g., returns both formatted number and word form?), but the provided details are sufficient for use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds context for 'paise' by explaining the Razorpay API convention (1 INR = 100 paise). The 'amount' parameter description is minimal but schema covers it.

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 tool formats an INR amount using Indian numbering conventions (lakh/crore grouping) and returns word form. It is distinct from sibling tools which are lookups/validations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool (formatting INR amounts) and explains the 'paise' parameter for Razorpay API style. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated.

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