Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payware MCP Server

Payware MCP Server

Official
by payware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

payware_products_get_schedule

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch detailed information for a specific product price schedule using product and schedule IDs. Requires the Premium plan; other plans return a 403 error.

Instructions

[Merchant] Get detailed information about a specific price schedule. Premium (PRM) plan only: the server answers 403 on any other plan (for an ISV, the merchant's 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>",
      "scheduleId": "<scheduleId>"
    },
    "name": "payware_products_get_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partnerIdNoMerchant partner ID (uses PAYWARE_PARTNER_ID env var as default)partner_12345
productIdYesProduct identifier (starts with 'pr')
privateKeyNoRSA private key for authentication (uses environment-specific private key as default)
scheduleIdYesSchedule identifier
useSandboxNoUse sandbox environment

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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description is not obligated to restate safety. It meaningfully adds the 403 failure mode and its cause, which the annotations cannot express, and the "[Merchant]" prefix clarifies the auth context. It stops short of describing response shape or pagination, but for a single-resource read that is minor.

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 compact sentences with the primary action first and the plan constraint immediately after. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description ideally would hint at what a schedule record contains, and it says nothing about the required productId+scheduleId pairing. The plan-gating disclosure is valuable, but the return-side context is missing for a tool with five parameters.

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 partnerId, productId, scheduleId, privateKey and useSandbox are all documented at the schema level. The description adds no further parameter meaning — it does not explain the productId/scheduleId relationship or whether the schedule is scoped under the product. 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?

Uses a specific verb and resource: "Get detailed information about a specific price schedule." The word "specific" implicitly distinguishes it from the list-style sibling payware_products_get_schedules, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a hard precondition — the Premium (PRM) plan requirement, including the ISV nuance that the merchant's plan governs — which is real usage guidance. It does not say when to call this versus the list tool or the create/update/delete schedule siblings, leaving that to inference.

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