Criar/atualizar planos no Pagar.me V5 (só sk_). Ações:
create: cria plano (data: name, interval, interval_count, items[], …).
update: atualiza plano (requer plan_id; data).
[Flattened action: create]
Bulk support: accepts plan_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| plan_id | No | ||
| plan_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 are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the tool modifies plans (create/update) and supports batched execution, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or response behavior. Some behavioral info is added, but not comprehensive.
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 concise, using bullet points and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds information, though some parts could be clearer. No waste, but could be restructured for clarity.
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?
With no output schema and minimal annotations, the tool is under-documented. It lacks return value description, error handling, and fails to distinguish itself clearly from sibling tools. Not adequate for reliable agent 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 description coverage is 0%. The description briefly explains 'data' for create (listing sub-fields) and mentions 'plan_id' for update, but does not describe 'account' or 'plan_ids' in detail. Parameter semantics are incomplete, leaving a key parameter undocumented.
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 the tool creates/updates plans in Pagar.me V5, but the presence of a sibling 'pagarme_plans_write_update' and the note 'Flattened action: create' creates ambiguity about the actual scope. The purpose is discernible but not fully clear.
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?
The description mentions 'só sk_' as a key type constraint and bulk support, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'pagarme_plans_write_update' or other plan-related tools. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
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.