Skip to main content
Glama
eliaskress

FlowCheck Financial API MCP Server

by eliaskress

List Payouts

flowcheck_list_payouts

Retrieve and filter Stripe and Shopify payout records with reconciliation status. View payout amounts, filter by source, status, and date range, and access paginated results with confidence scores.

Instructions

List Stripe and Shopify payouts with reconciliation status. Filter by source, status, and date range. Returns paginated results with match confidence scores. Amounts in cents.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNoFilter by payout source
statusNoFilter by payout status
fromNoStart date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)
toNoEnd date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)
limitNoResults per page (default 50, max 100)
cursorNoPagination cursor from previous response

Implementation Reference

  • The tool "flowcheck_list_payouts" is registered here, including its input schema and handler implementation.
    server.registerTool(
      "flowcheck_list_payouts",
      {
        title: "List Payouts",
        description:
          "List Stripe and Shopify payouts with reconciliation status. " +
          "Filter by source, status, and date range. Returns paginated results " +
          "with match confidence scores. Amounts in cents.",
        inputSchema: z.object({
          source: z
            .enum(["stripe", "shopify"])
            .optional()
            .describe("Filter by payout source"),
          status: z
            .enum(["paid", "pending", "in_transit", "failed", "canceled"])
            .optional()
            .describe("Filter by payout status"),
          from: z
            .string()
            .optional()
            .describe("Start date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)"),
          to: z
            .string()
            .optional()
            .describe("End date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)"),
          limit: z
            .number()
            .min(1)
            .max(100)
            .optional()
            .describe("Results per page (default 50, max 100)"),
          cursor: z
            .string()
            .optional()
            .describe("Pagination cursor from previous response"),
        }),
      },
      async (params) => {
        const result = await client.request("GET", "/payouts", { params });
        return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: result }] };
      },
    );
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: pagination, match confidence scores, and amount formatting ('Amounts in cents'). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and scope, second covers filtering capabilities, third discloses return format and units. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 list tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context about return format (paginated, confidence scores, amount units). It could mention typical use cases or relationship to other reconciliation tools, but covers the essential operational aspects well.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering by source, status, and date range, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), resources ('Stripe and Shopify payouts'), and includes specific scope ('with reconciliation status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like flowcheck_get_payout (singular) and flowcheck_list_transactions (different resource).

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?

The description implies usage through filter parameters (source, status, date range) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like flowcheck_get_payout or flowcheck_list_transactions. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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