Payme MCP Server

Create Card Token

cards_create

Tokenize a payment card (Uzcard, Humo) for later reuse. Provide the 16-digit number and expiry in MMYY format.

Instructions

Tokenize a payment card (Uzcard, Humo). Returns a reusable token. After creation, verify the card with SMS code using cards_verify. Example: cards_create({ cardNumber: '8600123456789012', expire: '0399' })

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cardNumber": "<cardNumber>",
      "expire": "<expire>"
    },
    "name": "cards_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`save`	No	Save card for future use
`expire`	Yes	Card expiry in MMYY format (e.g. '0399')
`cardNumber`	Yes	16-digit card number (e.g. '8600123456789012')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses the return of a reusable token and provides an example, but lacks details on side effects, security, error handling, or the role of the 'save' parameter, which is important given no annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a clear code example. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Covers purpose, flow, and example, but lacks details on the 'save' parameter's effect and the output token format. With no output schema, this gap reduces completeness.

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?

Adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying supported card types (Uzcard, Humo) and the output nature (reusable token). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is exceeded.

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 clearly states the tool tokenizes a payment card (Uzcard, Humo) and returns a reusable token. It distinguishes from sibling tools by implication (creation vs. verification/removal).

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?

Explicitly advises to use cards_verify after creation, providing a clear usage flow. However, does not discuss when not to use or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server