Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CigalPay MCP Server

CigalPay MCP Server

Official
by cigalpay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Find the payments of an order

get_payments_by_order
Read-only

Retrieve all payments for a given order reference to review every transaction created for that checkout.

Instructions

Every payment created for one of your order references (the order_id of create_checkout).

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": {
      "order_id": "<order_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_payments_by_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
order_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond stating the scope: no guidance on empty results, whether all payments are returned, ordering, or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted clauses, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the leading 'Every payment created for...' buries the action and never front-loads a verb.

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?

For a simple read-only one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the definition is close to adequate: annotations carry the safety profile and the parameter provenance is given. Missing is any statement of what comes back (list shape, empty case), which matters even for a lightweight read tool.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It does give useful provenance for order_id (the order reference from create_checkout), but says nothing about format, validity, or behavior when the id is unknown.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (payments) and the scope (a single order reference), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_payment and list_active_payments. However, it is a sentence fragment with no explicit verb, so whether it lists, counts, or returns a collection is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only hint is the parenthetical pointing to create_checkout as the source of order_id, which implies a prerequisite but not when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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