Recebíveis (payables) no Pagar.me V5. Ações:
list: lista recebíveis (page, size; data: status, payment_date, type, …).
get: recebível por payable_id.
[Flattened action: get]
Bulk support: accepts payable_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| payable_id | No | ||
| payable_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 declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds 'bulk support' via payable_ids, which is not in annotations, but lacks details on error handling, response format, or other behavioral nuances.
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 messy, mixing Portuguese and English, listing actions redundantly, and including a '[Flattened action: get]' note that adds confusion. Could be condensed and structured better.
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 0 required parameters, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description lacks details on return values, pagination behavior, error handling, and the role of the 'data' and 'account' parameters. Incomplete for effective tool selection.
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%. The description explains 'payable_id' and 'payable_ids', and implies 'page' and 'size' for list, but does not explain 'data' and 'account' parameters. Incomplete semantic coverage for a 6-parameter tool.
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 gets a receivable by payable_id and supports batch via payable_ids, but it confusingly includes a 'list' action that overlaps with the sibling tool 'pagarme_payables_list'. This blurs the tool's specific purpose and does not clearly distinguish it.
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 like 'pagarme_payables_list'. The description mentions both list and get actions without indicating that list should go to the dedicated list tool.
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.