Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Stables MCP Server

Stables MCP Server

Official
by stables-money
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create verification link

get_verification_link
Destructive

Generate a KYC verification link for a customer so they can complete required verification before making transfers.

Instructions

Generate a KYC verification link for a customer. The customer must complete verification before they can make transfers.

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": {
      "customerId": "<customerId>"
    },
    "name": "get_verification_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rejectUrlNoURL to redirect to after rejected verification
ttlInSecsNoTime-to-live for the KYC link in seconds (default: 1800)
customerIdYesThe customer ID to generate verification link for
successUrlNoURL to redirect to after successful verification
verificationTypeNoRun one verification step instead of the full flow, e.g. 'proof_of_address' when an RFI asks for it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.6.11
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / verificationType
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Run one verification step instead of the full flow, e.g. 'proof_of_address' when an RFI asks for it",
+  "enum": [
+    "liveness",
+    "passport",
+    "source_of_wealth",
+    "proof_of_address",
+    "business_edd"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description never explains why link generation is destructive (e.g. invalidating a previously issued link) or that the link expires. The KYC prerequisite is useful added context, but the surprising destructive flag is left unelaborated for a non-obvious mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action front-loaded before the business rationale. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing is padded.

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 description should say what comes back (presumably a hosted URL with an expiry) and whether repeated calls supersede earlier links. It covers the business purpose but leaves the return contract and the partial-step verificationType workflow to the schema alone.

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%, so all five parameters including the verificationType enum and ttlInSecs default are already documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: generate a KYC verification link for a customer, and clarifies that the seemingly read-only 'get_' prefix actually creates something. It does not differentiate from the closest sibling, create_customer_onboarding_link, so an agent must infer which link type to use.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The sentence 'The customer must complete verification before they can make transfers' implies the triggering condition (customer blocked on KYC), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of create_customer_onboarding_link as the alternative, and no reference to get_kyc_capabilities for checking status first.

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