Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
stripe-mcp-server

stripe-mcp-server

by udaykapur
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Attach Payment Method

attach_payment_method

Associate a payment method with a customer for future charges. Provide payment method ID and customer ID to complete the attachment.

Instructions

Attach a payment method to a customer.

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": {
      "payment_method_id": "<payment_method_id>",
      "customer": "<customer>"
    },
    "name": "attach_payment_method"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payment_method_idYesPayment method ID (pm_...)
customerYesCustomer ID to attach to (cus_...)
idempotency_keyNoOptional idempotency key for safe retries

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether attaching a payment method sets it as default, if it requires special permissions, or what happens on conflict. The description carries the full burden for a mutation tool but provides only the basic operation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise at one sentence, but its brevity leads to under-specification. It could benefit from structured details without being verbose.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return behavior, side effects (e.g., setting default payment method), and error conditions. It lacks this context, making it incomplete despite the tool's simplicity.

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%, with each parameter already well-documented (patterns, required status). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, scoring the baseline.

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 action (attach) and the resource (payment method to a customer), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like detach_payment_method by implying the opposite direction.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like detach_payment_method or how it interacts with customer payment method settings. The absence of usage context forces the agent to infer based on name alone.

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