Skip to main content
Glama

Listar cartões

list_cards
Read-only

Lista os cartões de crédito do usuário. currentInvoice é o total da fatura mais próxima ainda não paga (ordenada por year/month) — 0 se não houver fatura em aberto. Para o valor completo de uma fatura específica (aberta ou fechada) use as tools de fatura (invoice_for_period/list_pending_invoices), não este campo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: `currentInvoice` is the total of the nearest unpaid invoice ordered by year/month, and is 0 when there is no open invoice. This explains computed behavior that annotations cannot convey.

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 two well-structured sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second explains the key field and routes users to the correct alternative tools. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the one potentially confusing field (`currentInvoice`) and points to invoice-specific tools when needed. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema coverage is effectively complete with an empty properties object. The description goes further by explaining the semantics of an output field, which is a bonus beyond the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it lists the user's credit cards. It also clarifies the meaning of the `currentInvoice` field, which removes ambiguity about what this tool returns. Although the title already says 'Listar cartões', the description adds enough detail to distinguish it from account-listing or invoice-listing siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool: for the complete value of a specific invoice, it directs to `invoice_for_period` or `list_pending_invoices` instead of relying on the `currentInvoice` field. This is a clear when/when-not statement with named alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tools are individually well-described and many cross-reference their closest neighbors, but the set contains several easily confused clusters: create_transaction/confirm_new_transaction, update_equity/add_equity_valuation, the invoice tools (current_invoice, next_invoice, list_pending_invoices, get_invoice), and the many analytics/projection tools. The descriptions help a careful reader, but with 81 tools an agent is likely to misselect among these overlapping surfaces.

Naming Consistency3/5

CRUD operations consistently use create_/list_/update_/delete_ plus a resource noun, and all names are snake_case. However, there is a large second group of noun-phrase analytics tools (cashflow_forecast, spending_projection, categories_insights, transport_routine) plus one-off verbs such as can_afford, pay_invoice, and validate_current_invoices, so the naming convention is mixed even though it remains readable.

Tool Count1/5

81 tools is far beyond the practical MCP tool surface and exceeds the rubric's 50+ extreme-mismatch threshold. Even if each tool maps to a real finance endpoint, the volume overwhelms an agent's context window and makes selection much harder.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the finance lifecycle extensively: accounts, cards, invoices, transactions, recurring rules, budgets, goals, debts, equities, categories, tags, cost centers, profile, projections, and insights all have working read/write paths. Minor gaps remain, such as no update/delete for tags and no direct update/delete for system-generated invoices, but agents can usually work around these.