Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Netfluid

by io.netfluid.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

paywall__wallet_visa_mastercard_recharge

Charges the Netfluid wallet's tokenised Visa/mastercards. The funds received from the card will remain in the Netfluid account_fk balance until transferred, see wallet_transfer. Only tokenised cards can be charged, use payment_3d_secure_link, when wallet_visa_mastercard_card_list returns empty in order to tokenize the card. Use wallet_visa_mastercard_card_list to retrieve the wallet_card_id Minimum amount is 1 ZAR. Merchant fees (3.5%) plus Netfluid Card Deposit fees (2.5%) will be deducted from the amount received. Always set the amount to charge at least 6% more than what's required in the wallet. @param wallet_fk: The Netfluid wallet_fk @param pin: The Netfluid wallet PIN @param wallet_card_id: The Netfluid tokenised card id, use wallet_visa_mastercard_card_list to retrieve this id. @param amount: The amount in ZAR to charge the card, must be 2 decimals. @param account_fk: The Netfluid account_fk into which the funds will be deposited, if 0 the system will select the first available ZAR account. On completion, use wallet_transfer to transfer funds to the paywall wallet. @return: a json object, containing the results in the "values" object

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pinYes
amountYes
wallet_fkYes
account_fkNo
wallet_card_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden and does so well: it discloses the fee structure (3.5% merchant + 2.5% Netfluid card deposit deducted from received amount), that funds land in the account_fk balance rather than the paywall wallet, and the minimum amount. It stops short of covering idempotency, failure/retry behavior, or PIN-lockout consequences, so not a full 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and fund-flow are front-loaded, and the workflow/fee/minimum sentences all earn their place. The trailing @param block partially repeats content already stated in prose (e.g. wallet_card_id retrieval is said twice), which is minor redundancy but slightly inflates length.

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?

For a 5-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, sequencing with sibling tools, fee economics, edge conditions (minimum, 6% buffer, default account_fk), and even the return shape ('values' object). Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully by documenting all five parameters: wallet_fk, pin, wallet_card_id (with how to obtain it via wallet_visa_mastercard_card_list), amount (ZAR, must be 2 decimals), and account_fk (default 0 means system picks the first available ZAR account). This is exactly what the schema omits.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Charges the Netfluid wallet's tokenised Visa/mastercards') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming wallet_visa_mastercard_card_list and wallet_transfer in the same breath. An agent can tell it apart from fund_card_recharge or wallet_transfer without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use and prerequisites: only tokenised cards can be charged, use payment_3d_secure_link when wallet_visa_mastercard_card_list returns empty, and after completion use wallet_transfer. It also states the minimum (1 ZAR) and the required 6% buffer, which is actionable guidance an agent must follow.

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

All Netfluid 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