Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
payping-mcp

payping-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

PayPing: list invoices

payping_list_invoices
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve PayPing merchant invoices with pagination, search, status, and customer filters to view amounts, due dates, paid dates, and payment status.

Instructions

List invoices: code, number, title, status (0 draft, 1 awaiting payment, 2 paid, 3 overdue, 4 cancelled), total (Toman), due and paid dates, customer.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoItems to return, 1-50.
offsetNoSkip this many items (paging).
searchNoText to search for.
statusNo
customer_codeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / customer_code / title
      Removed value: -"Customer Code"
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Items to return, 1-50 (PayPing's maximum is 50)."New value: +"Items to return, 1-50."
    • removedInput schema / properties / limit / title
      Removed value: -"Limit"
    • removedInput schema / properties / offset / title
      Removed value: -"Offset"
    • removedInput schema / properties / search / title
      Removed value: -"Search"
    • removedInput schema / properties / status / title
      Removed value: -"Status"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"payping_list_invoicesArguments"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "payping_list_invoicesDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or rate limits for a list operation.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and then the payload; every token carries information. The status legend is parenthetical and compact rather than sprawling.

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?

With no output schema, the field list is the right thing to include and it is present. However, for a 5-parameter filtered list tool it omits any statement of filterability and paging semantics, so an agent cannot infer how to narrow results.

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%; limit/offset/search are documented in the schema, while status and customer_code are not. The description supplies the semantics of the status values (draft/awaiting payment/paid/overdue/cancelled), which partially compensates, but never explains that status, search or customer_code are usable filters.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List invoices') and enumerates the fields the listing returns, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not differentiate from the sibling payping_get_invoice or explain how this list relates to payping_list_customers/transactions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as payping_get_invoice for a single invoice. The status legend hints that statuses exist but never says the tool can be filtered by them.

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