XPayr MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

xpayr_create_ai_agent

Provision a merchant-managed AI commerce agent identity with scoped credentials and programmable spending guardrails for controlled autonomous payments.

Instructions

Provision a new merchant-managed AI commerce agent identity with scoped credentials and programmable spending guardrails.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "xpayr_create_ai_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Human-readable AI agent name (e.g., Procurement Bot Alpha).
`description`	No	Purpose and operational scope of the AI agent.
`wallet_address`	No	Optional agent execution wallet address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the identity is merchant-managed and receives scoped credentials plus programmable spending guardrails, signaling a consequential write with delegated authority. However, it never says what is returned (agent ID, credentials, wallet binding), whether default guardrail values apply, or whether the operation is idempotent or reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and created object come first. Slightly adjective-heavy wording ('merchant-managed', 'programmable') costs a little density but wastes no space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should indicate what the caller gets back and what side effects occur, since neither structured field covers that. The guardrail and credential hints partially compensate, but the return contract and default policy behavior remain unspecified.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'scoped credentials and programmable spending guardrails' hints at policy state created alongside the agent but does not add syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Provision') and a clearly named resource ('new merchant-managed AI commerce agent identity'), which separates it cleanly from payment-session and intent siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but the resource noun is distinctive enough for an agent to route correctly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to create an agent versus when to update one via xpayr_update_ai_agent_policy, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., merchant auth context or whether the wallet must pre-exist). The agent is left to infer the trigger condition from the verb alone.

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