Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
momo-mcp

momo-mcp

by mbilisphe13
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Check a MoMo payment

momo_payment_status
Read-only

Check an MTN Mobile Money payment's status using the referenceId returned by a request-to-pay; returns PENDING, SUCCESSFUL, or FAILED.

Instructions

Look up a payment by the referenceId returned from momo_request_to_pay. Read-only. Status is PENDING, SUCCESSFUL or FAILED.

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": {
      "referenceId": "<referenceId>"
    },
    "name": "momo_payment_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
referenceIdYesThe UUID returned by momo_request_to_pay

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The status enumeration (PENDING, SUCCESSFUL, FAILED) is genuine added value not present in annotations or any output schema. 'Read-only' merely restates readOnlyHint and the openWorldHint implication (network call to MoMo) is left unmentioned, so it is not a fully rich disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the provenance of the input. Nothing is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return information (the three status values) and the source of the input. It omits whether SUCCESSFUL/FAILED are terminal and whether polling is safe, which would help an agent decide its next step.

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% and already says the referenceId is the UUID returned by momo_request_to_pay; the description repeats rather than extends that. No additional format, validation or failure-case guidance is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up a payment') plus the exact lookup key ('by the referenceId'), and explicitly names the sibling tool that produces that key. An agent can distinguish it from momo_request_to_pay without opening either schema.

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 ties usage to the outcome of momo_request_to_pay, making the intended call sequence clear. It does not state exclusions such as whether polling is expected or how often the status may be re-checked.

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