xendit-mcp

create_va

Create a virtual account to collect payments from customers. Specify bank, customer name, and unique ID.

Instructions

Create a virtual account for payment collection.

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": {
      "external_id": "<external_id>",
      "bank_code": "<bank_code>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_va"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Customer name for the virtual account
`bank_code`	Yes	Bank code: BCA, BNI, MANDIRI, BRI, PERMATA
`is_closed`	No	Whether the VA is closed (fixed amount)
`external_id`	Yes	Unique virtual account ID
`expected_amount`	No	Expected payment amount

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states 'Create' but does not explain side effects (e.g., idempotency, data persistence), authorization requirements, rate limits, or error behaviors.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, effectively front-loading the core purpose. However, it could include brief behavioral notes without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is too brief. It does not cover return value format, error scenarios, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like is_closed or expected_amount affect the virtual account's behavior.

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 'Create a virtual account for payment collection' clearly states the action (create) and resource (virtual account) with purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_va_payment or create_qr, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or sibling tool distinctions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

Deploy Server