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: update]
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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that it requires secret key ('só sk_') and supports bulk with plan_ids. However, it does not mention rate limits, idempotency, or error states.
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?
Description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses structured bullets for actions but includes a somewhat cryptic '[Flattened action: update]' that may distract.
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?
Covers dual create/update behavior and bulk support, which is sufficient for moderate complexity. Lacks details on response format, error handling, and full parameter semantics, especially given no output schema.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by naming key parameters: data (with example fields), plan_id (required for update), and plan_ids (bulk). However, the account parameter is undocumented and data format is incomplete.
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?
Description explicitly states 'Criar/atualizar planos' (create/update plans) and lists both actions. It distinguishes from sibling 'pagarme_plans_write_create' by serving as a combined tool, though the flattened action emphasizes update.
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 the dedicated create tool. The description implies usage but does not provide when-not or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer.
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.