Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
robokassa-mcp

robokassa-mcp

by artgas1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

refund_status

Retrieve the current state of a refund request using its unique identifier to confirm processing or completion.

Instructions

Check the current state of a previously-created refund request.

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": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "refund_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
request_idYesGUID returned by `refund_create()`.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description only says 'check the current state'. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, error handling, or rate limits. For a read-only tool, minimal disclosure is acceptable but still lacking.

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?

Single, immediately clear sentence with no extraneous information. Front-loaded with purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. But the description does not mention prerequisites (must have called refund_create) or error conditions. For a simple status check, it's moderately 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter description in schema already explains the parameter's source (GUID from refund_create). The tool description adds no additional meaning, so baseline 3.

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 it checks the state of a refund request, with a specific verb 'check' and resource 'state of a refund request'. It distinguishes from sibling tool refund_create.

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 implies usage after refund_create but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it, nor provides alternatives. It's implied but not explicit.

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