Skip to main content
Glama

Formas de pagamento

list_payment_methods
Read-onlyIdempotent

Formas de pagamento ativas (ids necessários para registrar pagamentos).

Escopo: financials:read · Risco: read · Efeitos: Nenhum. · INDISPONÍVEL nesta autorização (escopo não concedido ou papel sem o módulo)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_payment_methods"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material context the annotations do not: the required scope (financials:read) and a warning that the tool is currently unavailable under this authorization due to a missing scope or module role.

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?

Two compact lines: purpose and payload first, then the scope/risk/effect boilerplate. Every element is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent still needs: what the entries contain (ids) and the authorization caveat. It stops short of describing ordering or entry shape, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description adds nothing misleading about inputs and implicitly confirms it is an unfiltered list of all active methods.

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 names a specific resource ('Formas de pagamento ativas') and clarifies the payload ('ids necessários para registrar pagamentos'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_payments (payments vs. payment methods). It is clear, though it never explicitly names the sibling it differs from.

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 parenthetical '(ids necessários para registrar pagamentos)' gives a concrete purpose: fetch these ids before registering a payment. It does not name alternatives such as list_payments or state exclusions, keeping it just short of a 5.

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.