Xbitto MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Reject Payment

reject_payment

Destructive

Reject an on-hold payment for an undelivered order after the creator approves; this action is final and cannot be undone.

Instructions

Reject a payment on hold: the order is not delivered. Only do this after the creator has said so; it can't be undone.

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>"
    },
    "name": "reject_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`orderId`	Yes	The order id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as irreversible; the description reinforces that and goes further by naming the consequence ('the order is not delivered') and the authorization prerequisite. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotation, though it says nothing about side effects on related records or the response.

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 tight sentences: the action and its effect come first, followed immediately by the authorization condition and the irreversibility warning. Nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter destructive action with an existing annotation, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what it does, when it is permitted, and that it cannot be undone.

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?

Single orderId parameter fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the load. The description's 'payment on hold' framing implies the kind of order the ID must reference but adds no format or syntax detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (reject) and resource (payment) plus the precondition state ('on hold'), and the outcome clause ('the order is not delivered') makes it the clear counterpart to the sibling confirm_payment.

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?

Explicitly gates invocation on creator approval ('Only do this after the creator has said so'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative path (confirm_payment) for the agent to weigh against, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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