mercoa_get_payment_methodGet a single payment method for an entity. GET /entity/{entityId}/paymentMethod/{paymentMethodId}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityId | Yes | Entity ID or foreign ID. | |
| paymentMethodId | Yes | Payment method ID (e.g. pm_...). |
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, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds the endpoint but no additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, authentication requirements, or data sensitivity). This is adequate but does not exceed what annotations already imply.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus the endpoint path. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core purpose.
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's simplicity (two required string params, no output schema, readOnlyHint), the description is mostly complete. It could optionally mention the response format or that the entityId may be a foreign ID, but the schema already covers that. Minimal gap.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for entityId and paymentMethodId. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 the action ('Get') and resource ('a single payment method for an entity'), and provides the endpoint path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'mercoa_list_entity_payment_methods' which lists multiple payment methods.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use list vs get by ID). The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.
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 (entity, invoice, transaction, payment method, organization) and action (create, find, get, list, update, add). There is no ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'mercoa_verb_noun' using snake_case. Verbs like create, find, get, list, update are used predictably.
With 17 tools covering entities, invoices, transactions, payment methods, and organization, the count is well-scoped for a financial platform. Each tool justifies its existence.
The toolset covers core CRUD and query operations for the main resources. Minor gaps exist such as missing delete operations for entities and invoices, but the surface is largely complete for typical workflows.