Skip to main content
Glama
eliaskress

FlowCheck Financial API MCP Server

by eliaskress

Get Payout

flowcheck_get_payout

Retrieve payout details from Stripe or Shopify with matched bank transactions and confidence scores to verify financial transactions and detect discrepancies.

Instructions

Get a single payout (Stripe or Shopify) with matched bank transaction details and confidence score.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesStripe payout ID

Implementation Reference

  • The registration and handler implementation for the flowcheck_get_payout tool. It uses the client to request a single payout by ID.
    server.registerTool(
      "flowcheck_get_payout",
      {
        title: "Get Payout",
        description:
          "Get a single payout (Stripe or Shopify) with matched bank transaction details " +
          "and confidence score.",
        inputSchema: z.object({
          id: z.string().describe("Stripe payout ID"),
        }),
      },
      async ({ id }) => {
        const result = await client.request("GET", `/payouts/${id}`);
        return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: result }] };
      },
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output includes 'matched bank transaction details and confidence score,' which adds some behavioral context beyond a basic 'get' operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely accesses financial data.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get a single payout') and includes key details without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and output.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (financial data retrieval) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output features but misses critical context like authentication needs, data sources (Stripe/Shopify specifics), and return format, which could hinder effective use by an agent.

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%, with one parameter ('id') clearly documented as a 'Stripe payout ID.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or cross-platform considerations (e.g., Shopify vs. Stripe IDs). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving a single payout with specific details (matched bank transaction details and confidence score). It specifies the resource (payout) and the scope (single, with enhanced data), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'flowcheck_list_payouts' beyond implying single vs. list operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a payout ID), contrast with 'flowcheck_list_payouts' for multiple payouts, or specify contexts where this detailed view is preferred over a summary.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/eliaskress/flow-check-financial-api-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server