stripe-ops-mcp

find_duplicate_charges

Identify duplicate Stripe charges by comparing successful charges of the same amount for a customer within a configurable time window.

Instructions

Detecta posibles dobles cobros: cargos exitosos del mismo monto sobre el mismo customer dentro de una ventana de tiempo

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": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>"
    },
    "name": "find_duplicate_charges"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`customer_id`	Yes	ID del customer (cus_...)
`window_minutes`	No	Ventana en minutos para considerar dos cargos como duplicados

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds meaningful detail: only successful charges are considered, amounts must match, and duplicates are evaluated within a time window. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only or what the return shape is.

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?

One sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and includes only high-value qualifiers: 'posibles', 'exitosos', 'mismo monto', 'mismo customer', and 'ventana de tiempo'.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description plus the fully documented schema is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool. However, there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, and the description does not explain what the result contains, making it only partially complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'ventana de tiempo' concept but adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already documents for customer_id and window_minutes.

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 states a specific action ('Detecta posibles dobles cobros') and a precise scope: successful charges of the same amount on the same customer within a time window. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_recent_charges and revenue_summary, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs to surface possible duplicate successful charges for a customer within a window. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server