Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
payping-mcp

payping-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

PayPing: create invoice

payping_create_invoice
Destructive

Create a PayPing invoice for a saved customer and return code, payCode, and public payment URL; confirm customer, items, and prices before creating real data.

Instructions

Create an invoice for a saved customer; returns code, payCode and url (public pay page). Not sent: call payping_send_invoice or share the url. Creates real data: confirm customer, items and prices with the user before calling.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
notesNoShown to the customer.
titleNo
due_dateNoPay by this day (YYYY-MM-DD).
customer_codeYesFrom payping_create_customer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed13 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • removedInput schema / $defs / InvoiceItem / properties / amount_toman / title
      Removed value: -"Amount Toman"
    • removedInput schema / $defs / InvoiceItem / properties / description / title
      Removed value: -"Description"
    • removedInput schema / $defs / InvoiceItem / properties / has_tax / title
      Removed value: -"Has Tax"
    • removedInput schema / $defs / InvoiceItem / properties / quantity / title
      Removed value: -"Quantity"
    • removedInput schema / $defs / InvoiceItem / properties / title / title
      Removed value: -"Title"
    • removedInput schema / $defs / InvoiceItem / title
      Removed value: -"InvoiceItem"
    • removedInput schema / properties / customer_code / title
      Removed value: -"Customer Code"
    • removedInput schema / properties / due_date / title
      Removed value: -"Due Date"
    • removedInput schema / properties / items / title
      Removed value: -"Items"
    • removedInput schema / properties / notes / title
      Removed value: -"Notes"
    • removedInput schema / properties / title / title
      Removed value: -"Title"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"payping_create_invoiceArguments"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "payping_create_invoiceDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the invoice is created but NOT sent, and it demands user confirmation of customer/items/prices before execution. It stops short of explaining reversibility or what happens on retry (non-idempotent), which would be valuable given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and return values, then the routing rule, then the safety caveat — a sensible ordering in roughly three short sentences. The line break mid-sentence ("Not sent:\ncall payping_send_invoice") is slightly awkward but the content carries no filler.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields (code, payCode, url), stating the prerequisite, the non-send behavior, and the confirmation requirement. The remaining gap is the non-idempotent/destructive semantics — retry behavior and reversibility are not addressed.

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 60%, so some documentation is already present. The description reinforces the semantic gist (customer, items, prices) and implies customer_code must reference an existing customer, but adds no detail on the undocumented fields (title, notes, quantity, has_tax) beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create an invoice for a saved customer") and names the exact artifacts returned (`code`, `payCode`, `url`). It also distinguishes itself from payping_send_invoice and payping_create_payment_link by clarifying that the invoice is not dispatched, so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use-elsewhere rule: "Not sent: call payping_send_invoice or share the url." It also states a precondition ("saved customer") and a pre-call confirmation requirement ("confirm customer, items and prices with the user before calling"), leaving nothing 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