mcp-saas-toolkit

stripe_issue_refund

Refund a Stripe charge or payment intent fully or partially. Specify amount in cents and reason; returns refund details and status.

Instructions

Issue a full or partial refund for a Stripe charge or payment intent. Returns refund details and status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "stripe_issue_refund"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	No	Amount to refund in cents. Omit for full refund.
`charge`	No	Charge ID (ch_...). Provide this or payment_intent, not both.
`reason`	No	Reason for the refund
`payment_intent`	No	Payment Intent ID (pi_...). Provide this or charge, not both.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns refund details and status, but omits side effects (reversing a charge), idempotency, authorization requirements, or error conditions. Basic transparency is present but lacks depth.

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?

Two succinct sentences: first defines purpose, second describes output. No extraneous words. Front-loaded for quick parsing.

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 tool with 4 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and return value. However, it could provide more context on error handling or idempotency for a mutation tool. Still, it is fairly complete for typical use.

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 parameter descriptions already cover all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

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 ('Issue...refund'), specifies the target ('charge or payment intent'), and indicates whether it is full or partial. It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, all of which are different Stripe operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to issue a refund) and provides a constraint (provide charge or payment_intent, not both). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but there are no sibling refund tools to confuse with.

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