UberSync MCP Server

List Payment Methods

list_payment_methods

Read-onlyIdempotent

List available payment methods in a demo account and identify the default method used for ride payments.

Instructions

List demo payment methods and identify the default method used for demo rides.

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": "list_payment_methods"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 a useful behavioral detail: it returns not just payment methods but also identifies the default method for demo rides. However, it does not describe the return format, ordering, or any demo-specific caveats.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds the key secondary behavior. Every word contributes meaning; no padding or redundant phrasing.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what will be returned and highlights the default method identification. The only notable gap is the lack of differentiation from get_payment_methods, but the demo-specific framing reduces the risk of misuse.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently non-issue. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to add regarding inputs. Baseline of 4 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 states a clear verb ('list') and resource ('payment methods'), and adds a specific outcome: identifying the default method used for demo rides. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_payment_methods, which appears to cover a similar resource.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_payment_methods or choose_payment_method. The mention of 'demo' provides some context, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings.

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