alza-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Execute a web after-order payment (working path)

web_pay_after_order

Destructive

Pay an unpaid web-placed order using a selected payment method and a one-time confirmation token. Lists available payment IDs first, then completes the after-order payment through the verified payment gateway.

Instructions

Execute the after-order payment for an unpaid legacy-web order through the live-verified EShopService.svc CreateAfterPayment chain (the recorded real-payment path: e.g. MojePlatba 144 → KB SSO gateway). Use when the user needs to pay a web-placed order that is still unpaid. First list the available payment ids via mobile_read with operation=web_after_payment_dialog (GetAfterPaymentDialog). High-impact, money movement: requires a one-time token from prepare_mutation (action=web_after_order_payment) and explicit user confirmation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`price`	No	Override the amount to pay in CZK. Omit to pay the full due amount.
`order_id`	Yes	The unpaid order id (from `order` or the order-detail link).
`invoice_id`	No	Invoice id for the payment. Default "0" (server default).	0
`order_hash`	No	The `?x=` order hash from the order-detail link, if present.
`payment_id`	Yes	Payment method id from the after-payment dialog (e.g. 144 MojePlatba, 143 Platba 24, 103 proforma).
`confirmation_token`	Yes	One-time token from `prepare_mutation` prepared with the matching action.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`err`	No
`msg`	No
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), it discloses high-impact money movement, requires a one-time token and explicit user confirmation, and mentions the live-verified chain. This adds critical context about side effects and safety, going well beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Three dense sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value (purpose, usage, prerequisites, risk). Slightly heavy on jargon (EShopService.svc, KB SSO) but still efficient.

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 complex financial mutation, it covers the use case, prerequisites, and high-risk nature. It doesn't detail error handling or post-payment effects, but an output schema exists to cover return values. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds cross-reference context, telling where payment_id comes from (mobile_read dialog) and that confirmation_token is from prepare_mutation with a matching action. This enhances understanding of parameter origins beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Execute'), a clear resource ('after-order payment for an unpaid legacy-web order'), and differentiates itself as the 'working path' through a live-verified chain. It implicitly contrasts with mobile payment paths and names prerequisite tools, making its role unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when the user needs to pay a web-placed order that is still unpaid' and gives a step-by-step prerequisite (list payment ids via mobile_read, obtain token via prepare_mutation). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., pay_after_order for mobile), but the condition is clear and actionable.

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