payment-methods
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Intelligence Aeternum
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
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
D1.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
The three tools have distinct names suggesting different purposes (making purchases, managing payment methods, and listing prices), but without descriptions, it's unclear if there's functional overlap or if they operate on the same data. The lack of descriptions prevents full clarity on boundaries, though the names alone imply reasonable separation.
Naming Consistency2/5
The naming is inconsistent: 'make-purchase' uses a verb-object format with a hyphen, 'payment-methods' is a noun phrase with a hyphen, and 'price-listing' is another noun phrase with a hyphen. While all use hyphens, the mix of verb-based and noun-based names without a clear pattern (e.g., not all following verb_noun or noun_verb) reduces predictability and readability.
Tool Count3/5
With only 3 tools, the count is borderline thin for a server named 'Intelligence Aeternum', which suggests a broader or more complex domain. However, for a focused commerce or payment system, 3 tools could be adequate if they cover core operations, but the lack of descriptions makes it hard to assess if this is well-scoped or insufficient.
Completeness2/5
Inferred domain from tool names is commerce/payments, but the surface is significantly incomplete: there's no obvious tools for operations like viewing purchases, updating payment methods, or handling errors/refunds. The tools suggest a basic flow (list prices, choose payment, make purchase), but gaps in CRUD coverage (e.g., no 'get-purchase' or 'update-payment') could lead to agent failures in common scenarios.