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

stripe-mcp-server

by udaykapur
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Confirm Payment Intent

confirm_payment_intent
Destructive

Confirm a PaymentIntent to initiate payment processing. Optionally attach a payment method for redirect or manual confirmation.

Instructions

Confirm a PaymentIntent to initiate the payment. Optionally attach a payment method.

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": "confirm_payment_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payment_intent_idYesPaymentIntent ID (pi_...)
payment_methodNoPayment method ID to use for confirmation
return_urlNoReturn URL for redirect-based payment methods
idempotency_keyNoOptional idempotency key for safe retries

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so the tool is a write operation. The description adds that it initiates payment, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., charging the customer), idempotency behavior, or error conditions.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded and efficient. However, it could include a bit more context without becoming 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?

With no output schema, the description should at least mention the return value (e.g., confirmed PaymentIntent object). It also lacks details on required PaymentIntent status and behavior for different payment methods.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by stating the payment method is optional, but does not elaborate on return_url or idempotency_key beyond what the schema provides.

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 confirms a PaymentIntent to initiate payment, with an optional payment method attachment. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_payment_intent and capture_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 implies the tool is used to confirm a PaymentIntent, but does not specify when to use it versus alternatives like capture_payment_intent, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the PaymentIntent must be in a certain status.

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