get_payment_intent_statusChecks the current status of a Velora PaymentIntent. Accepts a paymentIntentId OR a customer name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customerName | No | Customer name (fuzzy match). | |
| paymentIntentId | No | Velora PaymentIntent id. Optional when customerName is provided. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the OR relationship between parameters and the 'current status' nuance, but these are also partially reflected in the schema. No additional behavioral details like output format or edge cases are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary detail. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and input options.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description adequately explains the core purpose and the two input modes. A minor gap is the lack of clarity on behavior when neither parameter is provided, but the overall context is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters thoroughly, but the description clarifies the OR relationship between paymentIntentId and customerName, which the schema only hints at. This adds meaningful guidance for selecting the correct input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Checks the current status') and the resource ('a Velora PaymentIntent'). It also clarifies the two accepted identifier inputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools which mainly handle other domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on how to identify the PaymentIntent (by ID or customer name), which is useful for parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, though no direct alternatives are apparent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools duplicate the same underlying data in different presentation modes (get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, query_catalog vs open_catalog_selector, connection_status vs open_onboarding), creating ambiguity. Descriptions mention 'widget' vs JSON but an agent could easily pick the wrong one for a given task.
Tool names mix Spanish and English (caja_consultar_saldo vs validate_cuit) and use varying verb prefixes (open_, query_, get_, list_, find_, track_, quote_, validate_); only the open_ prefix is consistent.
22 tools sits at the high end of the borderline range; the server covers multiple domains (catalog, shipping, payments, fiscal) which justifies many tools, but some widgets and query equivalents could be consolidated.
The surface is heavily read-only: there are no create/update/delete tools for customers, suppliers, or products, and the only way to register a sale is through a widget that fires an internal function. There are also no tools to actually create a payment link or charge, leaving transactional workflows incomplete.