Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pitchup.com MCP server

Pitchup.com MCP server

by dragosh29
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get a charge type

get_charge_type
Read-only

Fetches details of a specific charge type using its ID from Pitchup.com supplier account data.

Instructions

One charge type by ID.

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": {
      "charge_type_id": "<charge_type_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_charge_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
charge_type_idYesCharge type ID (a positive whole number)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what happens if the ID doesn't exist, whether the result is cached, or anything about the response.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with zero filler, but it is a verbless fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly limits clarity for no gain in brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what a charge type represents or what is returned. It provides only the bare lookup intent, leaving the agent to guess the payload.

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%, with charge_type_id documented as 'a positive whole number' including min/max bounds. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully carries parameter meaning and the description adds none.

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 fragment "One charge type by ID" names the resource and the lookup key, and 'by ID' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_charge_types. It is clear but doesn't explicitly say 'retrieve' or name the alternative, 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 guidance on when to use this versus list_charge_types or get_pricing; the agent must infer that a known ID means use this tool. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools