Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CigalPay MCP Server

CigalPay MCP Server

Official
by cigalpay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List the refunds of a payment

list_refunds
Read-only

Retrieves refunds for a specific payment ID, newest first with status, so you can review refund history and outcomes.

Instructions

Refunds of a payment, newest first, with their status.

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": {
      "payment_id": "<payment_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_refunds"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payment_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are sorted newest first and include status. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or what happens when a payment has no refunds.

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?

One compact clause with the ordering and payload front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with an undocumented parameter.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, this is close to adequate: it says what is returned and in what order. The gaps are the undocumented payment_id semantics and the absence of any pagination or empty-result note.

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%, so the single payment_id parameter is documented only by its name and minLength constraint. The description's 'of a payment' confirms the parameter's role but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states the exact resource returned (refunds of a payment) and the ordering and content of the result, so an agent can tell it is a per-payment refund listing rather than a payment lookup like get_payment or list_active_payments. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives for retrieving refunds by other criteria (order, date range). The phrase 'of a payment' only weakly implies that a payment_id must already be known.

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