Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Yugo MCP Server

Yugo MCP Server

by georgi-shulev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

get_payout_by_id

Retrieve a specific payout's details by providing its unique payout ID. Use this tool to access individual payout information.

Instructions

Get Payout — Retrieve details of a specific Payout by its unique identifier — [GET /payouts/{id}]

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_payout_by_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUnique identifier of the Payout

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), indicating a read-only operation, but does not mention authorization, error cases, rate limits, or what specific details are returned. This is a minimal but acceptable disclosure for a simple fetch.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and includes the REST endpoint. No wasted words; every part provides value.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not clarify return shape or error handling. It says 'details' vaguely. Given the lack of an output schema, more information about the response would improve completeness, though the operation itself is well-addressed.

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?

The schema contains 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id' ('Unique identifier of the Payout'), and the description adds no further semantics. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already handles the meaning.

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 ('Retrieve details') and the target ('a specific Payout by its unique identifier'), and the REST path [GET /payouts/{id}] distinguishes it from the sibling list tool get_payouts.

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: call this to get a single payout when you have its id, as opposed to get_payouts for listing. However, it does not explicitly specify when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions.

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