OpenMonetis MCP

Detalhar cartão

get_card

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a card's details, including spending limit, current usage, and current invoice, using its UUID for financial monitoring and review.

Instructions

Retorna os dados de um cartão, incluindo limite, uso e fatura corrente.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_card"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID do cartão.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the payload contents (limit, usage, current invoice), but says nothing about authorization scope, rate limits, or behavior for an unknown/invalid id.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it uses none of its brevity budget to route the agent to related tools.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-by-id tool with full annotation coverage, complete schema documentation, and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and previews the main returned fields. Only the not-found/error behavior and cross-tool routing are left implicit.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single required uuid parameter "id" ("ID do cartão."), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ("Retorna") with a specific resource ("um cartão") and even names the data returned (limite, uso, fatura corrente), so the agent knows exactly what this fetches. It does not distinguish itself from the many other get_* siblings (get_account, get_invoice_history), so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_account or get_invoice_history, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the card must belong to the authenticated user). Usage is only implied by the verb "Retorna" plus a required id.

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

Deploy Server