aeza-mcp

account_payment_methods_get_by_id

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific account payment method by its ID to review billing details and verify stored payment information.

Instructions

Get account payment method by id GET /account/payment-methods/{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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "account_payment_methods_get_by_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the REST path, disclosing nothing new about behavior: not what is returned, not what happens on an unknown id, not any permission or account-scoping requirement implied by 'account' in the path.

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?

Two short lines with the operation front-loaded and no filler. The second line largely restates the first for a reader who already knows the resource, but it is harmless and adds the concrete path.

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?

For a one-parameter read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is close to adequate, but the agent is left guessing where a payment-method id comes from and whether the id is account-scoped. A single extra clause would have made it complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does only partially: 'by id' plus the path template make clear that the single `id` argument is a payment-method identifier. It adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond that minimal signal.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get account payment method by id'), which is enough to separate it from the sibling list variant account_payment_methods_get_list. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied by 'by id' rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as account_payment_methods_get_list for listing or account_payment_methods_create for creation. The agent must infer the selection rule from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server