increase_list_cardsList cards. Increase API: GET /cards. Filter by account and status (sent as status.in). Read-only; no card actions are exposed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1–100. Default 100. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's next_cursor. | |
| status | No | Status filter (sent as status.in), e.g. active | disabled | canceled. | |
| account_id | No | Only cards for this account id. |
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only; no card actions are exposed' and specifies the API endpoint, but does not discuss pagination behavior, error handling, or other operational details beyond what annotations cover.
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 (three sentences) with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, API endpoint, filtering, and safety clarification.
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?
Given the tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and safety but does not hint at response structure or pagination behavior. Schema descriptions fully cover parameters, so completeness is adequate but not enriched beyond that.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description repeats the schema's filter details (account and status with 'status.in') without adding new meaning or clarifying parameter formats beyond the schema.
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 clearly states 'List cards' as the verb+resource, and the title 'List cards' reinforces this. Among siblings, it is the only tool for listing cards, so it is well-distinguished.
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 filtering by account and status, implying usage for listing cards with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., for card creation or updates) or provide when-not guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource type (account, account number, ACH transfer, etc.) with clear verb_noun naming, making them easily distinguishable.
All tools follow a consistent `increase_verb_noun` pattern in snake_case, with verbs like create, get, list, lookup.
18 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the scope of banking operations (accounts, transfers, transactions, cards, entities) justifies the count.
The server is heavily read-only with only one mutation (create_external_account). Missing create/update/delete for accounts, transfers, cards, etc., which limits its usefulness for full banking workflows.