retailcrm-mcp

order_payment_delete

Destructive

Delete a payment from an order by its ID. Returns success confirmation.

Instructions

Delete an order payment by id. Returns {success}.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "order_payment_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Payment ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds the return value '{success}', which is not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as permanence, cascading effects, or error conditions. The destructiveHint annotation already covers the destructive nature, lowering the bar.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and effective.

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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does, the parameter, and the return shape. It could mention error handling or irreversibility, but the destructive annotation covers the key risk.

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?

The input schema already documents the 'id' parameter as 'Payment ID to delete', and the description merely reiterates 'by id'. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what is already structured.

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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('order payment'), and the scope ('by id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like order_payment_create and order_payment_edit by specifying deletion.

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 usage (when you need to delete an order payment) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The destructive annotation provides some context but comes from structured data, not the description.

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