Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payware MCP Server

Payware MCP Server

Official
by payware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

payware_products_get_placement_stats

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves performance statistics for a product placement over a date range, including resolutions, recognitions, started transactions, confirmed payments, and confirmed amounts by currency.

Instructions

[Merchant] A placement's results over [from, to): offers shown when a bank resolved its ID (resolutions), offers shown after a recognised soundbite tap (recognitions), payments started (transactions) and confirmed, and confirmed amounts by currency.

Endpoint: GET /products/{productId}/placements/{placementId}/stats (PRM plan)

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": {
      "productId": "<productId>",
      "placementId": "<placementId>"
    },
    "name": "payware_products_get_placement_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEnd of the period, exclusive, in the same forms. Default: now. Any length: impressions are kept for good
fromNoStart of the period: a date (YYYY-MM-DD, the start of that day in UTC) or an ISO-8601 instant with an offset, e.g. 2026-10-19T00:00:00+03:00. Default: 30 days before to
productIdYesThe product's ID: pr + 8 letters or digits, e.g. pr7e4rCToG
useSandboxNoUse the sandbox (the default) rather than production
placementIdYesThe placement's ID: pl + 8 letters or digits, e.g. pl7e4rCToG

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is added context — and it delivers by defining each metric's business meaning (a 'resolution' is a bank resolving an ID, a 'recognition' is a soundbite tap) plus the PRM plan gate. With no output schema present, this metric glossary is the only place an agent can learn what the response fields signify; it stops short of stating rate limits or whether data is near-real-time.

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?

The reading is front-loaded — scope and metric list come first, endpoint and plan gate last — and the dense parenthetical definitions do real work rather than padding. The bracketed '[Merchant]' tag and bolded endpoint heading are slightly formatting-heavy for the payload, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a read-only stats endpoint with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: the window semantics, the meaning of each reported figure, the currency dimension, and the PRM plan requirement. What is missing is minor — pagination or row limits, whether figures are live or batch-refreshed, and how confirmed amounts differ from started transactions beyond the labels.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the exclusive 'to', the default 30-day 'from' window, and the sandbox flag. The description's '[from, to)' notation reinforces the exclusive-boundary semantics but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, so 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('A placement's results over [from, to)') and enumerates exactly what is returned: resolutions, recognitions, transactions, and confirmed amounts by currency. That is far more precise than the bare tool name, though it never names the closest sibling (payware_campaigns_get_campaign_stats) to route the agent between placement-level and campaign-level reporting.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the required productId/placementId and the '(PRM plan)' tag tell an agent this is a per-placement reporting call available only on the PRM plan, which is a real constraint worth knowing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus the campaign stats sibling and no statement of when this tool should be avoided.

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