@theyahia/robokassa-mcp

create_invoice

Create a Robokassa payment invoice and receive a signed payment link. Specify order sum, ID, and description; optionally include items for fiscalization.

Instructions

Создать счёт Robokassa. Возвращает ссылку на оплату с MD5-подписью.

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": {
      "outSum": "<outSum>",
      "invId": "<invId>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "create_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	Email покупателя для чека
`invId`	Yes	Номер счёта (уникальный ID заказа). 0 = автоматически
`items`	No	Позиции чека 54-ФЗ (если нужна фискализация)
`outSum`	Yes	Сумма платежа в рублях
`culture`	No	Язык интерфейса оплаты
`description`	Yes	Описание заказа (до 100 символов)
`expirationDate`	No	Срок жизни счёта в формате ISO 8601 (например 2025-12-31T23:59:59)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning a payment link with MD5 signature but fails to disclose mutation behavior, required permissions, or side effects. For a creation tool, more transparency is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, conveying the core purpose in two sentences. It effectively communicates the essential information without waste, though more detail could be beneficial.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 7 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure beyond 'link with MD5 signature' or cover error handling, idempotency, or configuration needs. It feels incomplete for the complexity.

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 have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a Robokassa invoice and returns a payment link with an MD5 signature. The verb 'create' and resource 'invoice' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes from the sibling 'check_invoice' which checks invoices.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'check_invoice'. It lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server