Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
robokassa-mcp

robokassa-mcp

by artgas1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

build_split_invoice

Create a URL for marketplace-style split payments to multiple recipients. Specify total amount and individual merchant splits.

Instructions

Build a URL for a multi-recipient (marketplace-style) split payment.

Each split: {merchantLogin, amount, description?}. Sum of amounts must equal out_amount.

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": {
      "out_amount": "<out_amount>",
      "splits": "<splits>"
    },
    "name": "build_split_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
out_amountYes
splitsYes
emailNo
inc_currNo
inv_idNo
descriptionNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and description does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it create a record or just generate a link?), auth requirements, or idempotency. The behavioral context is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 with no fluff; the purpose and split structure are clearly stated. However, some structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability for complex splits.

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 6 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (unused in description), the description is too minimal. It omits optional parameters, expected output format, and usage steps, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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%. The description explains out_amount and splits (including expected object structure) but ignores email, inc_curr, inv_id, and description parameters, leaving several parameters undocumented.

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 builds a URL for multi-recipient split payment, uses specific verbs ('Build'), specifies the resource ('URL'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_invoice by focusing on split payments.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_invoice). No when-not-to-use or scenario examples, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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