Mercury Multiorg MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_recipients

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists an organization's payment recipients with status, default method, last paid, and emails. Use for payees the org pays; customers and tax docs are separate.

Instructions

List one organization's payment recipients (id, name, nickname, status, default method, last paid, emails).

    Use this for payees the organization pays; use `list_customers` for
    invoice customers and `list_tax_docs` for which recipients have a W-9
    on file. Walks every page. Recipient ids are what `reportable_totals`
    matches transaction `counterpartyId` against. Bank coordinates
    (account/routing numbers, IBAN, SWIFT) and postal addresses are never
    returned. Names and emails are third-party text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity`	Yes	Exact `entity` key from `list_entities`, not its `display_name`. Required; there is no default.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.6Sep 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / entity / description

Previous value: -"Entity key from `list_entities`. Required; there is no default."New value: +"Exact `entity` key from `list_entities`, not its `display_name`. Required; there is no default."

First observedv0.1.4Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful non-obvious behavior: it "Walks every page", recipient ids are what reportable_totals matches counterpartyId against, bank coordinates and postal addresses are "never returned", and names/emails are third-party text. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and every added sentence carries useful information: alternatives, pagination, id semantics, exclusions, and data quality. It is slightly dense and the parenthetical field list partly duplicates what the output schema provides, but it remains appropriately compact for the value it delivers.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given one fully-documented required parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the remaining critical context: when to use it, pagination behavior, cross-tool id semantics, privacy exclusions, and data-source caveats. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema itself already documents the entity parameter thoroughly (exact key from list_entities, not display_name, required, no default). The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "List one organization's payment recipients", scoped to a single organization and enumerating the fields returned. It also explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by naming list_customers and list_tax_docs, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit routing: "Use this for payees the organization pays; use `list_customers` for invoice customers and `list_tax_docs` for which recipients have a W-9 on file." This gives both positive and negative usage guidance with named alternatives, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.