Clawallex MCP Server

update_card

Modify card security settings by adjusting per-transaction limits and merchant category code (MCC) restrictions for payment control.

Instructions

Update card risk controls: per-transaction limit and MCC whitelist/blacklist. At least one field must be provided. Changes take effect after issuer confirms.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`card_id`	Yes	Card ID to update
`client_request_id`	Yes	UUID idempotency key
`tx_limit`	No	Per-transaction limit in USD (e.g. '200.0000')
`allowed_mcc`	No	MCC whitelist, comma-separated (e.g. '5734,5815')
`blocked_mcc`	No	MCC blacklist, comma-separated (e.g. '7995')

Implementation Reference

src/tools/cards.ts:201-210 (handler)

The handler implementation for the update_card tool.

async (params) => {
  try {
    const body: Record<string, unknown> = { client_request_id: params.client_request_id };
    if (params.tx_limit) body.tx_limit = params.tx_limit;
    if (params.allowed_mcc) body.allowed_mcc = params.allowed_mcc;
    if (params.blocked_mcc) body.blocked_mcc = params.blocked_mcc;
    return toolOk(await client.post<unknown>(`/payment/cards/${params.card_id}/update`, body));
  } catch (err) {
    return toolError(err);
  }

src/tools/cards.ts:188-200 (registration)

Registration and schema definition for the update_card tool.

server.tool(
  "update_card",
  [
    "Update card risk controls: per-transaction limit and MCC whitelist/blacklist.",
    "At least one field must be provided. Changes take effect after issuer confirms.",
  ].join("\n"),
  {
    card_id: z.string().describe("Card ID to update"),
    client_request_id: z.string().max(64).describe("UUID idempotency key"),
    tx_limit: z.string().describe("Per-transaction limit in USD (e.g. '200.0000')").optional(),
    allowed_mcc: z.string().describe("MCC whitelist, comma-separated (e.g. '5734,5815')").optional(),
    blocked_mcc: z.string().describe("MCC blacklist, comma-separated (e.g. '7995')").optional(),
  },

Tool Definition Quality

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the delayed effect ('Changes take effect after issuer confirms'), but omits other key behaviors such as idempotency semantics (despite the client_request_id parameter), partial vs. full update semantics, or error handling when issuer confirmation fails.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is optimally concise with two efficient sentences. The first establishes purpose and scope; the second provides operational constraints and behavioral expectations. Every clause conveys necessary information without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides minimum viable coverage for a financial mutation tool. It identifies the async confirmation behavior but should explicitly confirm this performs partial updates (PATCH semantics) and describe the idempotency behavior implied by client_request_id.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics: the constraint 'At least one field must be provided' clarifies that despite only card_id and client_request_id being marked required, the caller must provide at least one of tx_limit, allowed_mcc, or blocked_mcc.

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 specific action ('Update') and domain ('card risk controls'), distinguishing it from siblings like refill_card (balance) or create_card_order (issuance). It explicitly identifies the configurable resources: 'per-transaction limit and MCC whitelist/blacklist.'

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?

The description provides the critical operational constraint 'At least one field must be provided,' preventing empty update calls. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to whitelist vs. blacklist) or prerequisites like required permissions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security
Open Source Has a Bot Problem
By punkpeye on March 19, 2026.
open source

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/clawallex/clawallex-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server