agentcard

start_kyc

Idempotent

Begin (or resume) identity verification. Verification is CONVERSATIONAL: it starts with a photo of the user's government ID — the backend reads the printed details automatically and the user confirms every value. Only fields the ID does not carry are asked (like the SSN for US documents, or the national ID number for non-US ones); occupation/income questions are never asked. The only browser step is a short face scan at the end. Relay each step to the user as ONE SHORT message (one or two sentences — the current ask only, never the whole flow, never an unrequested link). Returns the next step, ID-photo upload options, and (for legacy hosted-flow accounts) a hosted verification URL instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`terms_accepted`	No	DEPRECATED — use agreements_accepted. Pass true once the user has explicitly agreed to the card issuer's cardholder terms in the conversation.
`agreements_accepted`	No	Keys of the User Agreements the user explicitly accepted, one by one (the full required set from the agreements list — e.g. e_sign, account_opening_privacy, card_terms, accuracy, non_solicitation). Only pass after presenting each agreement verbatim and getting a yes covering all of them.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Provider reason on rejection.
`status`	No	"started", "verified", "rejected", or "unknown".
`message`	Yes	Human-readable summary / next step.
`nextStep`	No	Conversational step: id_document \| fields \| terms \| face_verification \| review_pending \| verified \| rejected.
`uploadUrl`	No	Browser upload page for the ID photo (1h validity).
`missingFields`	No	Fields still needed from the user.
`verificationUrl`	No	Face-scan page (conversational flow) or hosted verification URL (legacy flow), 48h validity.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds detailed behavioral context beyond annotations: explains the interactive process, which fields are automatically read vs. asked, that occupation/income are never asked, and the return value structure (next step, upload options, hosted URL). No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Packs much information but includes instructions to the agent ('Relay each step as one short message') that could be considered extraneous. Front-loaded purpose, but could be more concise.

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 complexity of identity verification, the description covers the process, input constraints, and expected outputs. Output schema exists to define return values, so description need not detail them.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by clarifying that 'terms_accepted' is deprecated and 'agreements_accepted' expects specific keys (e_sign, etc.), and explains the acceptance process.

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?

Clearly states 'Begin (or resume) identity verification.' Describes the conversational flow and differentiates from siblings like check_kyc_document or submit_kyc_fields by specifying this is the initial step.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Describes when to use (starting/resuming KYC) and provides conversational guidance, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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?