Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Stables MCP Server

Stables MCP Server

Official
by stables-money
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List information requests

list_rfis
Read-onlyIdempotent

View organizational compliance requests (RFIs) required before releasing held payments. Identify specific information needed to complete transactions and verification processes.

Instructions

List the organisation's compliance requests for information (RFIs), newest first: what Stables compliance needs before it releases a held payment or verification. Open and submitted ones by default. Check this when a transfer or deposit is held, or subscribe to the rfi.* webhooks.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_rfis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOnly these RFI types
limitNoResults per page
cursorNonext_cursor from the previous page
statusNoOnly these statuses (default: open and submitted)
customerIdNoOnly this customer's RFIs
transactionReferenceIdNoOnly RFIs about this transfer or deposit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.6.11
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds ordering ('newest first') and the default filter ('open and submitted ones by default'), which are real behavioral facts not visible elsewhere except implicitly in the status schema text. It does not mention pagination limits or volume characteristics.

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 dense clauses with no filler: identity, definition, default scope and when-to-call are all front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the domain meaning, default filter and trigger scenario an agent needs. Only the relationship to sibling RFI tools (list_customer_rfis, get_rfi, submit_rfi_evidence) is left unstated.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description's only parameter-relevant information (default status = open + submitted) restates the schema's own note. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List the organisation's compliance requests for information (RFIs)') and explains what an RFI is in domain terms (what compliance needs before releasing a held payment). It does not name its closest sibling list_customer_rfis, so the scope boundary between 'organisation-wide' and 'per-customer' listing has to be inferred from the customerId parameter.

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?

'Check this when a transfer or deposit is held' gives a concrete triggering situation, and 'subscribe to the rfi.* webhooks' names an alternative approach. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer list_customer_rfis or get_rfi for a single record).

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