Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CigalPay MCP Server

CigalPay MCP Server

Official
by cigalpay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List accepted coins

list_supported_coins
Read-only

Lists the cryptocurrencies CigalPay accepts directly, helping you confirm which coins are natively supported before creating a payment link.

Instructions

The coins CigalPay accepts directly (other coins are converted automatically at checkout).

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": "list_supported_coins"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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 and openness profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond that — automatic conversion of unsupported coins — but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or what a returned entry looks like.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the core fact and followed by the most useful qualifier. Nothing is padded, though the sentence-fragment construction is slightly less crisp than a verb-led statement would be.

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?

This is a trivial zero-parameter read with no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn the shape of the result (e.g., symbol vs. display name vs. network). That return-value detail is missing, leaving a modest but real gap for a listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not introduce any spurious input concepts.

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 names the resource precisely: the coins CigalPay accepts directly, with a clarifying parenthetical that other coins are auto-converted. A verb is absent (it reads as a fragment rather than 'List the coins...'), but the intent is unambiguous and no sibling tool could be confused with it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but the parenthetical carries real decision value: an agent learns it does not need to pre-filter checkouts to only these coins because others are converted at checkout. That is implied guidance rather than stated guidance.

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