shopware-mcp

List payment methods

payment_methods_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List payment methods with active status, plugin handler, sales channels and filters to see what is offered and why a method is missing at checkout.

Instructions

List payment methods with active flag, handler (plugin), availability rule and the sales channels they are assigned to. Filter e.g. active=true or salesChannels.id. Use it for 'which payment methods do we offer?' and to explain why one is missing at checkout. Returns { total, page, limit, items[] }.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "payment_methods_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	1-based page
`sort`	No	Sort order; defaults per tool
`term`	No	Full-text search term
`limit`	No	Items per page, max 50 (default from SHOPWARE_MCP_DEFAULT_LIMIT)
`fields`	No	Extra raw entity fields to add to each item, e.g. ['customFields', 'ean']. Dot-paths allowed.
`filter`	No	Criteria filters, combined with AND

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds useful behavior beyond them: which entity attributes are returned and what filters are meaningful. It omits details like pagination defaults or whether all methods are returned regardless of active status, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and fields, followed by filtering guidance and then the return shape. No redundant or filler language; each clause adds information.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies the return envelope { total, page, limit, items[] }, which is important context. For a six-parameter, read-only list tool with complete schema coverage, this is nearly complete, though it could note default pagination behavior or scope of results.

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%, so parameters are already documented; the description only adds two filter examples (active=true, salesChannels.id) and does not explain page, sort, term, or fields semantics beyond the schema. This is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List payment methods') and names the exact fields returned: active flag, handler/plugin, availability rule, and assigned sales channels. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as shipping_methods_list or sales_channels_list.

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 two concrete use cases ('which payment methods do we offer?' and explaining why one is missing at checkout) plus filter examples like active=true and salesChannels.id. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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