Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Paymenter MCP Server

Paymenter MCP Server

by dongocanh0501
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

paymenter_create_order

Create a new order for a user with a specified currency, enabling automated billing, invoicing, or cloud provisioning workflows.

Instructions

Create a new order for a user.

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>",
      "currency_code": "<currency_code>"
    },
    "name": "paymenter_create_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYesTarget user ID
currency_codeYes3-letter ISO currency code (e.g. USD)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does not state whether the target user must already exist, what side effects occur, whether the order is billed immediately, or what permissions are required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits preconditions, side effects, and result behavior. An agent could invoke it but would lack the context needed to do so reliably.

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 the two parameters (user_id, currency_code) are fully documented by the schema itself. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 a specific verb (create) and resource (order) with scope (for a user), which is clear enough to distinguish it from list/get/delete order siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those alternatives, so it isn't maximally differentiating.

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 guidance on when to create an order versus related operations (e.g., creating a service or invoice item), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the literal purpose statement, which is the minimum, not real 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