Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
XPayr MCP Server

XPayr MCP Server

Official
by xpayrcom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

xpayr_set_webhook_endpoint

Configure or update the merchant HTTPS webhook receiver URL and generate a fresh 32-byte HMAC-SHA256 signing secret so payment events can be verified.

Instructions

Configure or update the merchant HTTPS webhook receiver URL and generate a fresh 32-byte HMAC-SHA256 signing secret.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "xpayr_set_webhook_endpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesHTTPS webhook endpoint URL (e.g., https://mystore.com/webhooks/xpayr).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a meaningful side effect (a fresh 32-byte HMAC-SHA256 secret is generated), which is more than a bare 'set URL' would give. It omits whether the previous secret is invalidated, whether the secret is returned only once, and whether the URL is validated/rejected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the secondary effect is placed after the primary action rather than buried.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and its key side effect. The main residual gap is what the caller receives back (the new secret) and whether rotation breaks existing signature verification.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'url' with an HTTPS example. The description only reinforces the HTTPS requirement; it adds no format or validation 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?

States a specific verb pair (configure/update) on a specific resource (merchant HTTPS webhook receiver URL) and adds a second effect (generate signing secret). An agent can tell this is the write-side counterpart to a config getter, though no sibling is named.

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 statement of when to call this versus xpayr_get_webhook_config (read) or xpayr_send_test_webhook (verify), and no prerequisites such as authentication or dashboard access. The agent must infer context entirely.

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