agentcard

link_account

Destructive

Link or merge another Agentcard account that belongs to the same person. Use when the user says they already have an account under a DIFFERENT email or phone number — most often after identity verification (KYC) is rejected as a duplicate, which means that person already verified on another account. Two steps: (1) call with { type, identifier } to send a one-time code to that email/phone; (2) call again with the { ticket, code } to verify. If the identifier belongs to a different account, the two accounts are MERGED (the identity-verified account survives and gains the other's email/phone, so both sign in to one account); if no account has it, it is simply added to the current account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Step 2: the one-time code the user received.
`type`	No	Step 1: which kind of identifier the OTHER account uses.
`ticket`	No	Step 2: the ticket returned by step 1.
`identifier`	No	Step 1: the email address or phone number of the other account to verify.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	Yes	Human-readable result or next step.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, and the description goes beyond by explaining that accounts are merged (the identity-verified account survives) or the identifier is simply added if no account exists. It also details the two-step process and code verification, adding significant behavioral context.

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?

The description is detailed but front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured into two steps. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (two-step process, conditional outcomes), the description covers all necessary context: when to use, steps, possible results (merge vs. add). Output schema exists but return values are not explained; however, that is acceptable per rules.

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 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond schema by grouping parameters into steps (Step 1: type, identifier; Step 2: ticket, code) and explaining their purpose in the flow, aiding correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool links or merges accounts belonging to the same person, with specific verb ('link or merge') and resource ('Agentcard account'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by describing a unique operation (merging accounts) not available in other tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'when the user says they already have an account under a DIFFERENT email or phone number — most often after identity verification (KYC) is rejected as a duplicate'. It provides step-by-step guidance but does not mention when not to use or alternatives, slightly reducing score.

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

All agentcard tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially in areas like card management and shopping. However, the KYC flow has multiple overlapping tools (start_kyc, get_kyc_status, check_kyc_document, submit_kyc_document, submit_kyc_fields) that could confuse an agent despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_funds, create_card, list_cards). A few exceptions like surprise_me and whoami break the pattern but are still intuitive overall.

Tool Count3/5

50 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the broad domain (cards, shopping, KYC, support, settings) partially justifies it. Some tools could be merged (e.g., KYC flow tools) without losing clarity.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows: CRUD for cards, transactions, KYC, support, shopping, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_card general, no cancel order in shopping), but overall the set is comprehensive for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?