Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Pagar.me

by io.github.mcp-dir
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

pagarme_plans_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Planos de assinatura no Pagar.me V5. Ações:

  • list: lista planos (page, size; data: name, status).

  • get: plano por plan_id.

[Flattened action: get]

Bulk support: accepts plan_ids for batched execution.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pagarme_plans_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
pageNo
sizeNo
accountNo
plan_idNo
plan_idsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which are consistent. The description adds batch execution via plan_ids, but does not disclose authentication requirements or behavior when multiple parameters are provided together (e.g., plan_id and plan_ids).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is relatively short but contains unnecessary sections (e.g., 'Ações:' with list and get) and an unclear note '[Flattened action: get]'. It could be more direct and structured.

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?

The description does not specify the return format or any output schema. The behavior when combining parameters (e.g., page with plan_id) is not defined. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient.

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?

The description explains page and size for list, and plan_id for get, and mentions plan_ids for bulk. However, 'data' and 'account' parameters are not explained. With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify all parameters.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description mentions both list and get actions, but the tool name is 'pagarme_plans_get' and a sibling 'pagarme_plans_list' exists, creating ambiguity. The phrase '[Flattened action: get]' is unclear and does not clarify the tool's primary purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'pagarme_plans_list'. The description includes list actions, which would confuse an agent about which tool to invoke for listing plans.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources