Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
payping-mcp

payping-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

PayPing: create product

payping_create_product
Destructive

Creates a PayPing product (financial item) and returns its code, letting you generate a payment link; confirm title and price because it writes real data.

Instructions

Create a product (financial item) and return its code. Then payping_create_payment_link makes a public payment page for it. Creates real data: confirm title and price with the user before calling.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
has_taxNoAdd VAT to the price.
quantityNoStock; omit for unlimited.
descriptionNo
amount_tomanNoPrice in Toman.
amount_set_by_payerNoPayer types the amount (donations); no price.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / amount_set_by_payer / title
      Removed value: -"Amount Set By Payer"
    • removedInput schema / properties / amount_toman / title
      Removed value: -"Amount Toman"
    • removedInput schema / properties / description / title
      Removed value: -"Description"
    • removedInput schema / properties / has_tax / title
      Removed value: -"Has Tax"
    • removedInput schema / properties / quantity / title
      Removed value: -"Quantity"
    • removedInput schema / properties / title / title
      Removed value: -"Title"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"payping_create_productArguments"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "payping_create_productDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value on top: it flags that this writes production data, mandates user confirmation, and discloses the returned `code` field, which no structured field provides.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the mutation-and-confirm warning is front-loaded alongside the purpose rather than buried, and every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description names the returned identifier, and it covers the creation/confirmation flow for a 6-param write tool. Missing only secondary details such as currency handling for amount_toman versus amount_set_by_payer, which the schema partially covers.

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 coverage is 67%, with most optional params (has_tax, quantity, amount_set_by_payer) already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to 'title and price', adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the 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+resource ('Create a product') plus a clarifying parenthetical ('financial item') and the return value ('return its `code`'). This cleanly separates it from the read-side siblings (payping_list_products, payping_get_product) and the follow-on payping_create_payment_link.

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?

Gives a clear workflow cue ('Then payping_create_payment_link makes a public payment page for it') and a hard precondition ('confirm title and price with the user before calling'). It stops short of naming when not to use it (e.g. versus create_invoice), but the routing for the common path is explicit.

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