monapay_generate_webhook_snippetGenerate a PHP, Node, or Python webhook receiver snippet for MONA Pay with HMAC verification and sample payload to handle payment callbacks correctly.
Trả code mẫu endpoint nhận webhook MONA Pay + verify HMAC đúng chuẩn cho PHP / Node / Python, kèm payload mẫu. / Get a webhook receiver snippet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content context (the snippet includes correct HMAC verification and a sample payload), but says nothing about output format structure, SDK/library dependencies, or whether snippets are parameterizable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short front-loaded sentences; the core deliverable and supported languages appear immediately. The bilingual duplication adds redundancy but no bloat or buried detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only code-generation tool with a single enum parameter and no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what it will receive (receiver snippet + HMAC verification + sample payload). Only minor gaps remain around output shape and language-specific caveats.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
One parameter (language) with schema description coverage 0%, but the enum itself enumerates php/node/python, and the description merely repeats those same values. It confirms rather than expands parameter meaning, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap beyond what the schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and deliverable: return a webhook receiver endpoint snippet for MONA Pay with standards-correct HMAC verification, for PHP/Node/Python, plus sample payload. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like monapay_create_webhook (configuration), monapay_test_webhook (delivery test), and monapay_verify_signature (runtime verification).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the generative nature of the tool (an agent wanting sample receiver code will pick it), but the description never states when to use it versus monapay_verify_signature or monapay_create_webhook, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. Implied usage only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.