Fuul MCP Server

list_payouts_pending_approval

Retrieve a paginated list of payouts pending approval for a project. Specify the project ID and optional page parameters.

Instructions

Lists payouts pending approval: GET /api/v1/projects/:projectId/payouts/pending-approval. Optional page, page_size. Example: {"project_id":"","page":1,"page_size":50}.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_payouts_pending_approval"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes
`page`	No	Forwarded as ?page=
`page_size`	No	Forwarded as ?page_size=

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.12.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and pagination, but doesn't mention behavior like empty results, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 efficient sentences plus an example. Front-loaded with purpose, no fluff, well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values or pagination metadata. For a list tool, this information is important for agent planning.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (page, page_size). The description adds an example showing how to use project_id and pagination, providing practical context beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists payouts pending approval and provides the REST endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like approve_payouts and reject_payouts.

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?

Description specifies optional pagination parameters, implying usage for retrieving pending payouts. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear.

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