ohneben's Wafeq MCP

wafeq_payment_requests_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a paginated list of payment requests from Wafeq. Filter by status, currency, amount, or date to review pending or processed payments.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Payment Requests · GET /payment_requests/

List payment requests

Endpoint for retrieving a list of payment requests.

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": "wafeq_payment_requests_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	A page number within the paginated result set.
`status`	No	Status
`currency`	No	Currency
`page_size`	No	Number of results to return per page.
`amount_max`	No	Amount
`amount_min`	No	Amount
`date_after`	No	Date
`date_before`	No	Date
`created_ts_after`	No	The timestamp in UTC when the payment request was created
`created_ts_before`	No	The timestamp in UTC when the payment request was created
`modified_ts_after`	No	The timestamp in UTC when the payment request was last modified
`modified_ts_before`	No	The timestamp in UTC when the payment request was last modified

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description redundantly repeats 'READ-ONLY' with the green emoji and adds the GET endpoint context. No deeper behavioral detail such as pagination defaults or result shape is disclosed, but the annotations lower the bar.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

At three lines, the description is brief, but 'List payment requests' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of payment requests' are redundant restatements of the same idea. The emoji and endpoint prefix are efficient front-loaded context. One sentence could carry the same information.

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?

For a read-only filtered-list operation with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It omits any note on pagination semantics or when to prefer retrieve over list. No output schema exists, so return-value expectations are left entirely to the agent.

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%, so all 12 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies per the coverage rule.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List payment requests' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of payment requests.' The HTTP method GET and the 'Payment Requests' resource marker make the operation unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling retrieval tools, but the list-vs-single semantics are strongly implied.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus wafeq_payment_requests_retrieve for a single record, or versus the create/update/destroy siblings. The agent must infer selection from the name alone. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

Deploy Server