paystack-mcp

resend_transfers_otp

Generate a new OTP and send it to the customer for transfer verification. Provide the transfer code and reason to resend an OTP or initiate the verification process.

Instructions

Generates a new OTP and sends to customer for transfer verification

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": {
      "transfer_code": "<transfer_code>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "resend_transfers_otp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	Yes	Either resend_otp or transfer
`transfer_code`	Yes	Transfer code

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that an OTP is generated and sent, lacking details about invalidating previous OTPs, delivery method, rate limits, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a side-effect-producing tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function without unnecessary words. It earns its place, though it could be marginally clearer about the 'resend' aspect.

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?

Despite having only two simple parameters, the tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description does not explain the flow context (e.g., what reason values mean, whether a new OTP invalidates the old one). This makes it incomplete for an agent to safely invoke in a transactional flow.

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 describes both parameters (transfer_code and reason) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since the schema already provides sufficient information.

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 action ('Generates a new OTP') and the context ('for transfer verification'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable/disable_transfers_otp. It does not explicitly use the word 'resend', but the meaning is clear from the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'for transfer verification' implies a context but does not explain how this tool relates to enable/disable OTP tools or the overall transfer flow.

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