Criar/renovar cartões de um cliente no Pagar.me V5 (só sk_; requer customer_id). Ações:
create: tokeniza/salva cartão (data: number, holder_name, exp_month, exp_year, cvv ou card_token).
renew: renova cartão (requer card_id).
[Flattened action: create]
Bulk support: accepts customer_ids, card_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| card_id | No | ||
| card_ids | No | ||
| customer_id | Yes | ||
| customer_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 a write operation. The description adds that it tokenizes/saves card and supports bulk execution, but the inclusion of a renew action that conflicts with a sibling tool reduces clarity.
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 structured with headings and bullet points, but it is somewhat lengthy and includes ambiguous terms like 'Flattened action: create'. Some redundancy exists.
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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers API version, required key, parameter details, and bulk support. However, it lacks expected output format and does not resolve the ambiguous sibling relationship.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning by explaining the 'data' field can contain card details (number, holder_name, etc.) and mentions card_id for renew and bulk parameters. This compensates well for the sparse schema.
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 creates or renews cards, but there is a sibling tool 'pagarme_cards_write_renew' specifically for renewal, creating ambiguity. The 'Flattened action: create' note suggests it is primarily for create, but the description lists both actions.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling 'pagarme_cards_write_renew'. The description mentions required customer_id and key, but does not differentiate contexts or provide alternatives.
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.