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

stripe-mcp-server

by udaykapur
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Cancel Payment Intent

cancel_payment_intent
Destructive

Cancel an unpaid PaymentIntent to prevent processing. Use idempotency key for safe retries.

Instructions

Cancel a PaymentIntent. Can only cancel intents that are not already succeeded.

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_intent_id": "<payment_intent_id>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_payment_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payment_intent_idYesPaymentIntent ID (pi_...)
cancellation_reasonNoReason for cancellation
idempotency_keyNoOptional idempotency key for safe retries

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds the important behavioral constraint about intent state beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not elaborate on side effects like idempotency or webhook triggers, but the core safety constraint is well communicated.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. Every word serves a purpose: the verb, resource, and the critical state constraint.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and a key limitation. It does not describe return values, but that is acceptable for a cancellation action.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic guidance beyond the schema's own definitions (e.g., pattern, enum).

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 verb 'Cancel' on the resource 'PaymentIntent' and includes a key constraint ('not already succeeded'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like capture_payment_intent or confirm_payment_intent.

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 specifies that cancellation is only possible for intents that are not yet succeeded, which provides a clear precondition. However, it does not mention when to use alternatives (e.g., create_refund for succeeded intents) or explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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