Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Stables MCP Server

Stables MCP Server

Official
by stables-money
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Simulate payment route deposit (sandbox)

simulate_route_deposit
Destructive

Simulate a sandbox fiat deposit into a payment route to test conversion and payout without a real bank transfer. Use it only in non-production; it fails on production.

Instructions

SANDBOX ONLY. Simulate a fiat deposit into a payment route so you can watch the conversion and payout complete without a real bank transfer. Fails on production.

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>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "simulate_route_deposit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesDeposit amount in major units (e.g. '500.00')
scenarioNo'completed' runs the deposit through to payout, 'failed' exercises the failure path, 'create_only' stops at the deposit
customerIdYesThe customer ID
senderNameNoName to attribute the deposit to
senderReferenceNoPayment reference on the deposit
virtualAccountIdYesThe payment route (virtual account) ID
externalDepositIdNoYour own reference for this 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
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare non-readonly, destructive, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful sandbox and production-failure context. However, it does not explain what state is created or modified, how repeated calls behave, or what exactly happens when the production guard triggers.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The critical SANDBOX ONLY warning is front-loaded, followed immediately by the action and the production failure caveat.

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 sandbox simulation tool with full parameter documentation and useful annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and environment constraint. It does not explain return values or how to observe the simulated conversion and payout, but no output schema exists and the core call requirements are covered.

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 parameters, including the scenario enum, are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: simulate a fiat deposit into a payment route. It also clarifies the sandbox-only scope, which distinguishes it from real deposit or transfer tools in the sibling list.

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 clearly says when to use it: in sandbox, to watch conversion and payout without a real bank transfer. It also states it fails on production, providing a strong usage boundary, but it does not name a sibling alternative such as simulate_transfer_deposit for comparison.

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