jazzcash-mcp

refund_payment

Destructive

Refund a JazzCash transaction by providing the original transaction reference and amount. Irreversible — moves money back to the customer. Applicable to card transactions; verify for wallet/OTC.

Instructions

Refund a JazzCash transaction (authorize/Refund). amount is in PKR rupees. IRREVERSIBLE — moves money back to the customer. Per JazzCash, refunds apply to card transactions; verify applicability for wallet/OTC.

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": {
      "txn_ref": "<txn_ref>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "refund_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes	Refund amount in PKR rupees (converted to paisa automatically)
`txn_ref`	Yes	Original transaction reference to refund

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (irreversible). The description reinforces this and adds context about automatic paisa conversion and transaction type limitations, which is helpful beyond the annotations.

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, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action and key constraints. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters and annotations cover safety, the description is fairly complete. It adds applicability notes but lacks any indication of return output, which is acceptable as there is no output schema defined.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description mentions 'amount is in PKR rupees' which is already in the schema, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the tool refunds a JazzCash transaction and specifies the currency (PKR rupees). The action and resource are unambiguous, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_payment, which is acceptable given the naming.

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 advises that refunds are irreversible and provides a caveat about applicability to card transactions only, urging verification for wallet/OTC. This gives reasonable guidance on when to use and what to check, though it does not specify alternatives.

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

Deploy Server