Consulta o status de uma transação por payment_id. tipo seleciona o meio (credit, debit, pix, boleto). Somente leitura, não cria nem altera cobrança.
Bulk support: accepts payment_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| payment_id | Yes | ||
| payment_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 already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Somente leitura, não cria nem altera cobrança', adding context about batch behavior. No contradictions.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and parameter details; the second adds bulk support. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, parameter hints, and bulk support. It does not detail the return format, but for a status check tool this is acceptable.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'tipo' (with enumerated values) and 'payment_id', plus bulk via 'payment_ids'. However, the 'account' parameter is not mentioned, leaving a gap.
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 tool's purpose: to query transaction status by payment_id, with specific verb 'Consulta o status'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getnet_get_card or getnet_list_accounts by focusing on payments.
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 explicitly mentions it is read-only and does not create or modify charges, guiding when to use. It also notes bulk support. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, though sibling names make this clear.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct function: Getnet-specific tools target different resources (cards, payments, customers, accounts), while platform tools handle authentication, connection status, marketplace lookup, bug reporting, and version info. There is no overlap in the actions they perform.
The Getnet tools follow a consistent `getnet_` prefix with verb_noun structure, but the platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) use a mix of bare verbs and noun phrases, and lack the prefix. This creates two divergent naming conventions within the same server.
With 11 tools, the server has a reasonable number for a mixed-purpose integration. However, the inclusion of platform-wide management tools alongside Getnet-specific ones makes the scope feel broader than a typical payment server, but the count itself is not excessive.
The Getnet-specific tools are read-only (list/get operations) with no ability to create, update, or delete customers, cards, or payments. This is a significant gap for a payment-related server, though the marketplace tool could potentially compensate by invoking other MCPs.