Bayarcash MCP Server

get_transaction

Retrieve detailed transaction information using a transaction ID to verify payments, track status, and manage payment records within the Bayarcash MCP Server.

Instructions

Get transaction details by transaction ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`transaction_id`	Yes	Transaction ID to retrieve

Implementation Reference

src/index.ts:260-276 (handler)

Primary MCP tool handler for 'get_transaction': validates input with transactionIdSchema, calls BayarcashClient.getTransaction, and returns JSON response.

case 'get_transaction': {
  // Validate input
  const validation = validateInput(transactionIdSchema, args);
  if (!validation.success) {
    throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidParams, `Validation error: ${validation.error}`);
  }

  const result = await bayarcash.getTransaction(validation.data.transaction_id);
  return {
    content: [
      {
        type: 'text',
        text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2)
      }
    ]
  };
}

src/smithery.ts:75-87 (handler)

Alternative MCP tool handler for 'get_transaction' using Smithery framework: defines schema inline with Zod and handler function.

server.tool(
  'get_transaction',
  'Get transaction details by transaction ID',
  {
    transaction_id: z.string().describe('Transaction ID to retrieve')
  },
  async ({ transaction_id }) => {
    const result = await bayarcash.getTransaction(transaction_id);
    return {
      content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }]
    };
  }
);

src/validation.ts:80-84 (schema)

Zod schema for validating get_transaction input: requires transaction_id string.

// Transaction ID schema
export const transactionIdSchema = z.object({
  transaction_id: z.string().min(1, 'Transaction ID is required')
});

src/bayarcash-client.ts:290-297 (helper)

Core BayarcashClient method implementing the API call to fetch transaction by ID.

async getTransaction(transactionId: string): Promise<Transaction> {
  try {
    const response = await this.axiosInstance.get(`/transactions/${transactionId}`);
    return response.data.data || response.data;
  } catch (error) {
    this.handleError(error);
  }
}

src/index.ts:116-129 (registration)

Tool registration metadata in ListToolsRequestHandler, including name, description, and input schema.

{
  name: 'get_transaction',
  description: 'Get transaction details by transaction ID',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      transaction_id: {
        type: 'string',
        description: 'Transaction ID to retrieve'
      }
    },
    required: ['transaction_id']
  }
},

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Dec 12, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving details but doesn't specify what those details include, whether authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or if it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what details are returned, potential error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. Given the context of multiple transaction-related tools, more guidance is needed for proper tool selection.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter 'transaction_id'. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is used to retrieve details, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction details'), specifying it's by transaction ID. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction_by_order' or 'list_transactions', which also retrieve transaction information through different mechanisms.

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 like 'get_transaction_by_order' or 'list_transactions'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist for its use.

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

Deploy Server