Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
razorpay-mcp

razorpay-mcp

by indiamcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Remote

get_refund

Retrieve detailed information about a specific refund by providing the payment ID and refund ID.

Instructions

Fetch details of a specific refund

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": {
      "payment_id": "<payment_id>",
      "refund_id": "<refund_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_refund"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payment_idYesPayment ID, e.g. pay_xxxxx
refund_idYesRefund ID, e.g. rfnd_xxxxx

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states 'fetch details', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that is clear and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or any additional context about the refund details. The tool is under-documented for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters have descriptions with examples (e.g., 'pay_xxxxx', 'rfnd_xxxxx'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'details of a specific refund', distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_refunds' (which lists multiple) and 'get_payment' (which fetches a different resource). However, it is very brief and could be more specific about what details are returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_refunds' or 'get_payment'. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context without explicit direction.

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