Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es

beel_list_payment_connections

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a company's payment provider connections, including linked external accounts and statuses, to check if a provisioned NIF has completed its connection.

Instructions

Returns the payment provider connections of a company your account owns or manages, with the provider-side account each one points at and its status. Use it to check whether a NIF you provisioned has completed its connection.

  • A NIF with no connections: answers 200 with an empty list.

  • environment: Test and Live connections are independent, so only the ones living in the mode of the key you ask with are returned; this field states which.

Closed catalogue. A NIF is not limited to one connection per provider: within a single environment it may hold several of the same provider, one per external account. What is unique is the external account itself — one live connection per provider, environment and external account. The set is still bounded and unpaginated: the collection carries no pagination and takes no page/limit, and every response holds the whole set for the environment of the key you ask with.

Endpoint: GET /v1/companies/{company_id}/payment-connections

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / company_id / description
      Previous value: -"NIF (company) the operation acts on. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A NIF you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a NIF that does not exist, so the existence of a NIF in another account is never disclosed."New value: +"Unique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed."
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them — empty-list 200 response, that Test and Live connections are independent and filtered by key environment, and that the collection is bounded and unpaginated. That last point is the kind of disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then adds bulleted constraints; each block earns its place. The 'Closed catalogue' paragraph is somewhat wordy for what it conveys, but the structure keeps key facts skimmable.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return (connections with provider-side account and status) and the unpaginated, bounded-list behavior, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Minor gaps remain, e.g. connection field names, but the essentials are present.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the 403/non-disclosure semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the environment scoping but doesn't add syntax beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the payment provider connections of a company') plus the exact payload (provider-side account and status) and the ownership scope that gates it. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like beel_list_payment_events, beel_get_company, or beel_initiate_payment_connection.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('Use it to check whether a NIF you provisioned has completed its connection') and clarifies environment scoping, so the agent knows when this is the right read. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g., initiate/disconnect/update payment connection) or stating when not to use it.

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