Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payme MCP Server

Payme MCP Server

by sirliboyev-uz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

Pay Receipt

receipts_pay

Pay a receipt using a verified card token by providing the receipt ID and token.

Instructions

Pay a receipt using a verified card token. The card must be verified first. Example: receipts_pay({ receiptId: '63...', token: '630e5e...' })

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": {
      "receiptId": "<receiptId>",
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "receipts_pay"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesVerified card token from cards_verify
receiptIdYesReceipt ID from receipts_create

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action and prerequisite but does not mention side effects, return values, or limitations (e.g., whether the token expires after use). The transparency is partial.

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 sentences plus an example, with no redundancy. The main action is stated first, then prerequisite, then example. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, prerequisite, and an example. It could mention the return value or failure cases, but it is sufficient for most usage scenarios.

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 100%, with both parameters already described. The tool description adds an example that clarifies the format, but it does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Pay a receipt' using a verified card token. It distinguishes from sibling tools like receipts_send and cards_verify by specifying the payment action and requiring a verified card token.

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 states the prerequisite 'The card must be verified first,' giving clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the condition is sufficient for correct usage.

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