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

stripe-mcp-server

by udaykapur
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create Refund

create_refund
Destructive

Process refunds for charges or payment intents. Specify an amount for partial refunds, or leave empty for a full refund.

Instructions

Refund a charge or payment intent. Specify amount for partial refunds; omit for full refund.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_refund"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payment_intentNoPaymentIntent ID to refund (pi_...)
chargeNoCharge ID to refund (ch_...) - use this or payment_intent
amountNoAmount to refund in smallest currency unit. Omit for full refund.
reasonNoReason for refund
metadataNoMetadata
idempotency_keyNoOptional idempotency key for safe retries

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on behavioral implications like irreversibility, impact on balances, or dispute risks. It adds minimal context beyond the annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from noting required parameters. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the description omits critical constraints like the need to specify one of 'charge' or 'payment_intent', and does not explain inapplicability to certain payment states. It is insufficient for a complex tool with no output schema.

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%; the description repeats the partial vs full refund guidance for 'amount' but adds little else. 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 action (refund) and the resources (charge or payment intent). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_payment_intent' and 'list_refunds'.

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 provides guidance on specifying amount for partial vs full refunds, but does not clarify that one of 'charge' or 'payment_intent' must be provided, nor does it discuss when to use this tool over alternatives like 'cancel_payment_intent'.

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