Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@theyahia/robokassa-mcp

@theyahia/robokassa-mcp

by theYahia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

check_invoice

Retrieve the current status of a Robokassa invoice using its invoice ID. Get payment confirmation and state details.

Instructions

Проверить статус счёта Robokassa по номеру (OpStateExt).

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": {
      "invId": "<invId>"
    },
    "name": "check_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
invIdYesНомер счёта для проверки статуса

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description only states 'check status' with no details on behavior, authentication, error handling, or side effects. Insufficient for a read operation.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Includes API method name (OpStateExt) for specificity. Efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Simple tool with one param and clear purpose, but lacks any description of output/returned status. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own 'description' for invId. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'check', the resource 'invoice status', and the method 'by number (OpStateExt)'. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_invoice' which is for creation.

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?

Context implies use for checking existing invoices, contrasting with 'create_invoice'. No explicit when-not or alternative usage, but clear enough.

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