Skip to main content
Glama

pagarme_subscriptions_write_update_card

Criar/operar assinaturas no Pagar.me V5 (só sk_; não-destrutivas). Ações:

  • create: cria assinatura (data: customer_id/customer, plan_id ou items[], payment_method, card_id, …).

  • update_card: altera cartão (requer subscription_id; data).

  • update_payment_method: altera meio de pagamento (requer subscription_id; data).

  • update_billing_date: altera data de cobrança (requer subscription_id; data).

  • add_item: adiciona item (requer subscription_id; data).

  • add_usage: registra uso de item medido (requer subscription_id + item_id; data opcional).

[Flattened action: update_card]

Bulk support: accepts subscription_ids, item_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo
item_idNo
item_idsNo
subscription_idNo
subscription_idsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description states 'não-destrutivas' (non-destructive), which aligns with the destructiveHint=false annotation. However, it does not provide further behavioral details such as side effects, idempotency, or error conditions.

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 verbose and includes a list of actions that are not relevant to the update_card focus. This structure is confusing and wastes space; it could be trimmed to a single clear action.

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?

Given the parameter count (6), zero required parameters, and no output schema, the description should clarify the exact expected input structure and output. It fails to do so, and the multiple-action listing adds unnecessary complexity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%; the description loosely maps parameters to actions (e.g., subscription_id and data for update_card) but does not explain the format or constraints of the 'data' string field. This is insufficient for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 lists multiple actions (create, update_card, etc.) but states the flattened action is 'update_card'. This ambiguity undermines clarity. The tool name suggests a focused purpose, so the description is misleading.

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?

Some parameter requirements are given for each action (e.g., subscription_id and data for update_card), but there is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like pagarme_subscriptions_write_update_payment_method. The description does not differentiate from similar tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.