Retrieves available Holded payment methods with details such as ID, name, type, status, default flag, and linked banking account for invoicing or payment setup.
List available payment methods (Holded API v2). GET /payment-methods. Returns an array of {id, name, type, status, isDefault, bankingAccountId} — the v2 {items:[...]} envelope is normalized to a bare array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and it does disclose the return shape ({id, name, type, status, isDefault, bankingAccountId}) and the notable normalization of the v2 {items:[...]} envelope into a bare array — a real behavioral trait an agent would otherwise get wrong. It does not mention auth requirements, pagination, or ordering, keeping it below a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences: identity/endpoint first, then the return contract, then the one non-obvious quirk. No filler and the most surprising fact is not buried.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining the envelope normalization, which is exactly what an agent needs to consume the result. Minor gaps remain around pagination, ordering, and permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It adds no parameter detail, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List available payment methods') plus the backing endpoint (GET /payment-methods). 'payment methods' is unambiguously distinct from the sibling list_payments, so an agent can route without inspecting schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied by the name and the fact that no parameters exist; there is no explicit 'use when' statement or named alternative (e.g. list_payments vs list_payment_methods). Adequate for a trivial param-less list, but no guidance is actually given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.