Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Stables MCP Server

Stables MCP Server

Official
by stables-money
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Register PayID on payment route

register_route_payid
Destructive

Registers a PayID for an activated AUD payment route so payers can use an email-style alias instead of BSB and account details. Returns the existing PayID if one is already registered.

Instructions

Register a PayID for an activated AUD payment route, so payers can send to an email-style alias instead of a BSB and account number. Calling it again on a route that already has one returns the existing PayID.

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>",
      "virtualAccountId": "<virtualAccountId>"
    },
    "name": "register_route_payid"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
customerIdYesThe customer ID
virtualAccountIdYesThe AUD payment route (virtual account) ID

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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states that calling the tool again on a route that already has a PayID returns the existing PayID, which describes idempotent behavior. This directly contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=false. It also leaves destructiveHint=true unexplained, so the description contradicts structured behavioral data rather than supplementing it.

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 front-load the action and scope, then add the important re-call behavior. There is no filler and every sentence carries useful information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation, the description covers purpose and re-call behavior. However, it does not explain why the operation is marked destructive or what risk/irreversibility that implies, and its idempotency claim is inaccurate. No output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but mutation behavior should be.

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 customerId and virtualAccountId are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the route but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource (register a PayID) and narrows the scope to an activated AUD payment route, explaining the practical effect (email-style alias instead of BSB/account number). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling virtual-account tools, though no direct PayID sibling exists.

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 description implies a prerequisite that the route must be activated, and it notes re-call behavior. However, it does not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives such as update_virtual_account or update_route_destination, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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