SwitchWize MCP

Card Downgrade Path

get_card_downgrade_path

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return verified credit-card product-change (downgrade) paths and the issuer's fee-refund window: which no-fee or lower-fee card a given card can be product-changed to, and how long after the annual fee posts a refund is available on cancellation. Optionally filtered to one card id (issuer:slug); returns every verified path and window when omitted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cardId`	No	Optional card id (issuer:slug), e.g. chase:sapphire-reserve or capital-one:venture-x-rewards. Omit to return every verified downgrade path and fee-refund window.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asOf`	No	ISO timestamp of the underlying data this response reflects.
`tool`	Yes
`count`	No
`error`	No
`cardId`	No
`datasetUrl`	No
`attribution`	No
`generatedAt`	Yes	ISO timestamp this response was computed at.
`verified_at`	No
`schemaVersion`	Yes
`downgradePaths`	No
`methodologyUrl`	No
`feeRefundWindow`	No
`freshnessStatus`	No
`feeRefundWindows`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 22, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / error / properties / retryable
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 17, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "asOf": {
+    "description": "ISO timestamp of the underlying data this response reflects.",
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "attribution": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "cardId": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "count": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "datasetUrl": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "downgradePaths": {
+    "items": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "error": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "code": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "message": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "suggestions": {
+        "items": {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "code",
+      "message"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "feeRefundWindow": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": [
+      "object",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "feeRefundWindows": {
+    "items": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "freshnessStatus": {
+    "enum": [
+      "fresh",
+      "aging",
+      "stale",
+      "unavailable"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "generatedAt": {
+    "description": "ISO timestamp this response was computed at.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "methodologyUrl": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "schemaVersion": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "tool": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "verified_at": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "schemaVersion",
+  "tool",
+  "generatedAt"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 16, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral nuance: results are 'verified', the optional filter changes the result scope, and omitting it 'returns every verified path and window.' This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's output, and the second sentence states filtering behavior and the default fallback. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given one optional parameter, rich read-only/idempotent annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what results are returned, how to filter, and what happens when no filter is provided. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the cardId parameter is already documented with the issuer:slug format, examples, and omit behavior. The description mostly restates this information, adding no significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Return verified credit-card product-change (downgrade) paths and the issuer's fee-refund window.' It also clarifies the precise subject ('which no-fee or lower-fee card a given card can be product-changed to'), which distinguishes it from sibling card-related tools without needing to open their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for use: retrieve verified downgrade paths and fee-refund windows, optionally filtered by one card id. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the intended query scenario is unambiguous and no exclusions are needed.

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

All SwitchWize MCP tools Inspect

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.