Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payware MCP Server

Payware MCP Server

Official
by payware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

payware_operations_cancel_transaction

DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel an ACTIVE transaction you created before it is processed, using the transaction ID and a required status message; only the originating merchant can perform the cancellation.

Instructions

[Merchant] Cancel an ACTIVE transaction created by this merchant. Only the merchant who created the transaction can cancel it, and only before it has been processed.

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": {
      "transactionId": "<transactionId>",
      "statusMessage": "<statusMessage>"
    },
    "name": "payware_operations_cancel_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partnerIdNoPartner ID from payware dashboard. Can use PAYWARE_PARTNER_ID env var as default.partner_12345
privateKeyNoRSA private key for JWT token creation. Can use PAYWARE_PRIVATE_KEY_PATH env var as default.
useSandboxNoUse sandbox environment for testing
statusMessageYesReason for cancellation (required)
transactionIdYesTransaction ID to cancel (must be an ACTIVE 'pw' transaction created by this merchant). Format: 'pw' + 8 characters. Product ('pr') and soundbite ('ps') ids are NOT cancellable - deactivate those through the products API.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations do not carry: the authorization rule (only the creating merchant) and the lifecycle gate (ACTIVE, unprocessed only). It still says nothing about what cancellation does to the transaction afterward or what the call returns.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two constraints. No redundant restatement of the name or title and nothing that fails to earn 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?

A destructive mutation with five parameters but full schema coverage and rich per-parameter notes, so the schema carries most of the load. The main remaining gap is the post-cancellation outcome (result shape, whether status changes are immediate), which the description does not address and no output schema covers.

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 five parameters are already documented, including the 'pw' pattern and the note that 'pr'/'ps' IDs are not cancellable via this route. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (cancel a transaction) plus the state constraint (ACTIVE) and ownership scope, which lets an agent distinguish it from status/history reads. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead when the transaction is already processed, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for use: the caller must be the merchant that created the transaction, and the transaction must not yet be processed. The 'when not' is stated implicitly via 'only before it has been processed', but no explicit alternative tool is named for the processed or non-owner case.

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