Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payware MCP Server

Payware MCP Server

Official
by payware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

payware_data_get_report_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the status of an asynchronous report generation request by request ID to monitor progress and confirm completion.

Instructions

[Merchant] Get the status of an asynchronous report generation request. Use this to monitor report progress.

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": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>"
    },
    "name": "payware_data_get_report_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partnerIdNoPartner ID from payware dashboard. Uses PAYWARE_PARTNER_ID env var as default.partner_12345
requestIdYesThe request ID returned from the report generation request (UUID format)
privateKeyNoRSA private key for authentication. Uses production private key as default (Data API is production-only).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 covered. The description adds the useful fact that the underlying generation is asynchronous, but it does not say what state values come back (pending/ready/failed) or whether repeated polling is expected. For a status-polling tool, that is a moderate gap but not a contradiction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with the identity of the tool front-loaded and the usage hint second. The second sentence partially restates the first ('status' / 'monitor progress'), so it is not maximally tight but wastes little.

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 simple read-only polling tool with full schema coverage this is close to sufficient. However, there is no output schema and the description does not characterize the returned status states or any terminal condition, which is the one thing an agent polling this endpoint needs to interpret results.

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 requestId (UUID from the generation request), partnerId and privateKey are already documented in the schema, including default-resolution behavior. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get the status') and resource ('asynchronous report generation request'), scoping it to reports rather than exports or transactions. It does not name the near-identical sibling payware_data_get_export_status, so the agent must infer the report-vs-export distinction from the resource noun alone.

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?

'Use this to monitor report progress' gives a clear context for invocation, implying it is the polling step after payware_data_generate_report. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what to do if the request ID is unknown or expired, so there are no exclusions.

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