Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
xendit-mcp

xendit-mcp

by mrslbt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Guided Setup

guided_setup
Read-only

Generate a safe setup snippet for Claude Code or Claude Desktop with read-only, invoices, or guarded payouts mode. Uses a form when the client supports MCP elicitation.

Instructions

Generate a safe Claude Code or Claude Desktop setup snippet for read-only, invoices, or guarded payouts mode. Uses a form when the client supports MCP elicitation.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "guided_setup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoDesired user-facing mode
clientNoTarget client
allowLiveNoSet true only if you intend to use a live Xendit key
serverNameNoClaude MCP server name, defaults to xendit
maxDailyAmountNoOnly used for guarded-payouts mode
allowedAccountsNoComma-separated CHANNEL_CODE:ACCOUNT_NUMBER entries for guarded-payouts mode
maxDisbursementAmountNoOnly used for guarded-payouts mode

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. Description adds that the snippet is 'safe' and mentions form elicitation, but doesn't add substantive behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 short sentences that front-load the purpose. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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?

With 7 parameters (0 required), two enums, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. Could mention output format or more about allowLive context, but siblings are all queries so the role is clear.

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% (all parameters documented in schema). Description does not add additional meaning beyond schema, so baseline is 3.

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?

Clearly states it generates a safe setup snippet for three specific modes (read-only, invoices, guarded-payouts). Distinct from sibling tools which are all retrieval/query tools, so no ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides context about generating snippets and using forms when client supports MCP elicitation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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