Cobranças (charges) no Pagar.me V5. Ações:
list: lista paginada (page, size; filtros via data: status, payment_method, customer_id, order_id, created_since/until).
summary: agregado de cobranças (data: status, created_since/until).
get: detalhe por charge_id.
get_many: vários por charge_ids (lote).
[Flattened action: get]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| charge_id | No | ||
| charge_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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which describe safe read behavior. However, the description adds confusion by listing all actions, potentially misleading an agent into thinking it can list or summarize. It does not clarify the scope of the tool or any behavioral traits beyond the annotations.
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 overly broad and includes a bullet list of actions that are not all performed by this tool. The note '[Flattened action: get]' adds confusion. It could be concise and focused on the get operation only, but instead it is cluttered with extraneous information.
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 the complexity of 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, nor does it instruct on how to use charge_id effectively. The lack of clarity on which parameters apply to this specific action makes it insufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions parameters for each action (e.g., charge_id for get) but does not explain how the parameters relate to the tool's actual 'get' function. It omits semantics for charge_id (e.g., format, requiredness) and does not clarify that list-related parameters (page, size, data) are likely irrelevant.
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 lists multiple actions (list, summary, get, get_many) but identifies the tool as '[Flattened action: get]'. This conflates different operations and fails to clearly state that this tool is specifically for retrieving a single charge by ID. Sibling tools like pagarme_charges_list, pagarme_charges_summary, and pagarme_charges_get_many exist for the other actions, yet the description does not distinguish.
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 versus alternatives. There are dedicated siblings for list, summary, and batch retrieval, but the description does not advise that this tool should only be used for single charge retrieval via charge_id.
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.