Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payhip MCP Server

Payhip MCP Server

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

payhip_type

Types text into a specified numbered field on the current Payhip page to fill forms and enter data during store automation.

Instructions

Type text into a numbered field on the current Payhip page.

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": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "payhip_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to type.
elementYesField number from the last read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it does not say whether typing overwrites existing content, whether the field must be focused first, whether the form is submitted, or what the call returns. Only the 'current page' context adds anything beyond the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Nothing in it needs to be cut.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, fully documented tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main residual gaps are overwrite/focus behavior, which are modest for such a narrow input action.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema and baseline 3 applies. The description's 'numbered field' merely restates what element's description already says.

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?

States a specific verb ('Type text') and resource ('a numbered field on the current Payhip page'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like payhip_click and payhip_read. It never names an alternative explicitly, so the sibling distinction must be inferred.

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 only implied: 'numbered field' plus the schema's 'Field number from the last read' hints that payhip_read must precede this call, but the description never states that prerequisite or when to prefer click/read instead. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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