Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payhip MCP Server

Payhip MCP Server

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

payhip_status

Verify that your Cotlet.dev account, available credits, and Payhip store connection are ready before running order, product, or coupon actions.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and Payhip are ready: account, credits and Payhip connection.

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": "payhip_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the three things validated, and "check" implies a non-mutating probe, but it does not state whether the call consumes credits, whether it is strictly read-only, or how failures are surfaced.

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 compact sentence with the resource list front-loaded after the verb — no filler or redundancy. It is slightly terse for a status tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description should hint at what the result looks like (per-check pass/fail, credit balance, connection state). It names the checks but leaves the return shape and remediation on failure entirely unspecified.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter semantics to add. Nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty schema.

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 gives a specific verb ("Check") and names the concrete resources being validated: the Cotlet.dev account, credits, and the Payhip connection. That is enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools, which are page-interaction verbs (click, open, type, read), though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Usage is implied by "are ready" — an agent can infer this is a pre-flight health check to run before attempting Payhip work. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call it (before first use? after an auth error?), no exclusions, and no mention of what to do if a check fails.

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