Mutações em cartão: block (body reason opcional), unblock. Aceita accounts com 1 entrada (ou omitido em install single-account) — o card_id existe em apenas uma empresa.
[Flattened action: block]
Bulk support: accepts card_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| card_id | Yes | ||
| accounts | No | ||
| card_ids | No |
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 provide no safety hints beyond non-read-only. Description adds that it supports bulk execution via card_ids and that card_id exists in only one company. However, it does not disclose what blocking actually does (e.g., prevents transactions, duration) or if it's reversible.
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 is short but disorganized; it mixes block/unblock, a flattened action note, and bulk support without clear separation. Could be more concise and structured.
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?
As a mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain behavior, return values, and comparison to siblings. It partially covers bulk support and accounts limitation but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or when to use block vs unblock.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, description partially compensates by explaining 'reason' is optional for blocking, 'accounts' accepts one entry or omitted, and 'card_ids' enables bulk. But it leaves 'accounts' purpose unclear and doesn't describe 'card_id' beyond being required.
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 states it performs block mutations on cards with optional reason, but it also mentions 'unblock' which is confusing given a separate sibling tool for unblock. The purpose is mostly clear but ambiguous.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It mentions parameter restrictions (accounts limited to one entry), but does not differentiate from sibling contasimples_card_write_unblock or other tools.
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.
Almost all tools have clear purposes, especially with the contasimples_ prefix. Some overlap between statement and summary, but descriptions differentiate well. The general tools (marketplace, report_bug, etc.) are completely different from the financial ones, which reduces potential confusion.
The domain tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., contasimples_card_write_block). However, the inclusion of general tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace breaks the pattern. This inconsistency lowers the score.
With 24 tools covering authentication, financial operations, and platform utilities, the number is reasonable for a moderately complex MCP server. It doesn't feel excessive or too thin.
The toolset covers key financial operations (balance, bills, cards, statements, summary) and some mutations (block/unblock, create invite, delete user). However, missing CRUD for several entities (e.g., no update user, no create card, no delete invite) leaves gaps. The presence of platform utilities adds breadth but not depth.