Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payables MCP

Payables MCP

by zeybekci-lab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

request_payment_release

Queue approved bills for a payment run by submitting bill IDs and a run date. The ERP releases the run afterward.

Instructions

Queue approved bills for a payment run. Someone releases the run in the ERP.

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": {
      "bill_ids": "<bill_ids>",
      "run_date": "<run_date>"
    },
    "name": "request_payment_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bill_idsYesBill ids, all approved
run_dateYesYYYY-MM-DD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this queues rather than pays, but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, whether queuing is reversible, or what happens to already-queued bills.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scoping caveat; every sentence does work. It is a touch terse given the unanswered behavioral questions, but there is no filler.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent and scope adequately. It leaves the return value, failure behavior for unapproved bills, and auth requirements unstated.

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 both parameters (bill_ids, run_date) are already documented in the schema. The description's only added signal, that bills must be approved, duplicates the schema's own 'all approved' note and adds no format or syntax detail.

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 and resource ('Queue approved bills for a payment run'), which an agent can distinguish from read-side siblings such as get_pending_releases or get_bill. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The prerequisite ('approved bills') and the scope boundary ('Someone releases the run in the ERP') give clear context for when this tool applies and where its responsibility ends. No alternatives or when-not conditions are named, so no exclusions are documented.

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