Skip to main content
Glama

Pagar.me

by io.github.mcp-dir
OverviewAdmin

pagarme_legacy_list_payables

Read-onlyIdempotent

Leitura da API LEGADA V1–V4 do Pagar.me (modelo "transactions"). Ativa quando a conexão usa uma chave ak_… (contas ainda não migradas pra V5). As 4 versões legadas compartilham estes endpoints; diferenças de campo entre V1/V2/V3/V4 vêm cruas no payload. Ações:

  • list_transactions / get_transaction (requer transaction_id)

  • list_subscriptions / list_plans / list_payables / list_recipients / list_customers / list_transfers

  • balance: saldo da conta Filtros de lista (count, page, status, …) via data (JSON).

[Flattened action: list_payables]

Bulk support: accepts transaction_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo
transaction_idNo
transaction_idsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds bulk support via transaction_ids and version-specific field variations, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is overly verbose and contains general legacy API context and a list of actions not specific to this tool. The key action is buried, and the structure is messy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to fully cover parameter semantics or return format. The 'account' parameter is unexplained, and response details are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%. The description explains the 'data' parameter as a JSON filter for list options and mentions 'transaction_ids' for bulk. But 'account' and 'transaction_id' are not explained, leaving gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool lists payables from the legacy Pagar.me API, but it is cluttered with other actions and general legacy context, which dilutes focus. Sibling pagarme_payables_list exists, but no explicit differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Describes when to use (legacy accounts with ak_ keys) and mentions differences between V1-V4. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Pagar.me toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources