Retrieves all payment methods associated with your OVH account.
Get user payment methods
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ovh_get_payment_methods"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only retrieval but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no payment methods exist. The minimal description is insufficient for safe tool invocation.
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?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and added value. It could be slightly more informative without adding length.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of objects with fields) or pagination, leaving the agent underinformed about the tool's output.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description adds no parameter-specific info but is acceptable for a parameterless tool.
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?
The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('payment methods'), indicating the tool retrieves payment methods. However, it does not distinguish from sibling getters like ovh_get_bills or ovh_get_orders, lacking specificity on what constitutes a payment method.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ovh_get_orders for order-related payment info). The description is too brief to advise on context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.