finpay-mcp-server

list_payment_hubs

List all payment hubs in FinPay with their current status and health metrics. Identify operational issues across GlobalPay, SwiftRoute, MobileFirst, and RegionalX.

Instructions

List all payment hubs in the FinPay platform with their current status and health metrics. Returns all 4 hubs: GlobalPay (global), SwiftRoute (SWIFT high-value), MobileFirst (mobile money), and RegionalX (Southeast Asia).

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_payment_hubs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output scope (all 4 named hubs) and that it includes status and health metrics, implying a read-only operation. It does not detail error behavior or exact metric fields, but for a parameterless list tool this is adequate.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide useful specifics (the four hubs). No redundant language or unnecessary filler.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is returned and even names all results. Slightly more detail on the exact health metrics would improve it, but the current description is enough for selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; it instead explains the fixed set of hubs, which is more relevant.

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 tool 'List all payment hubs' with 'current status and health metrics', and even enumerates the exact four hubs. This unambiguously defines the resource and verb, and distinguishes from sibling get_payment_hub which targets a single hub.

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?

The description makes it clear this is for an overview of all payment hubs, implying it should be used when a complete listing is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like get_payment_hub, but the 'all 4 hubs' phrasing provides sufficient context for when to choose this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server