Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
razorpay-mcp

razorpay-mcp

by indiamcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Remote

get_failed_payment_analysis

Analyze failed payments by error code, bank, and payment method to identify decline reasons within a date range.

Instructions

Analyze why payments are failing — breakdown by error code, bank, payment method

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "get_failed_payment_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromYesUnix timestamp — start date
toYesUnix timestamp — end date

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool analyzes failures, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any rate limits, aggregation behavior, or how results are structured. This is minimal transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from bullet points or explicit sections.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or how to interpret the breakdowns. More detail is needed for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage (from and to as timestamps). The description does not add any additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing why payments fail with breakdowns by error code, bank, and payment method. It distinguishes from siblings like get_payment_analytics (general analytics) and get_dashboard_summary (summary), though it could be more specific.

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 use when payments are failing but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_payment_analytics. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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