Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payme MCP Server

Payme MCP Server

by sirliboyev-uz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

Check Card

cards_check

Validate a card token and get card details including masked number, expiry, and status.

Instructions

Check if a card token is valid and get card details (masked number, expiry, status). Example: cards_check({ token: '630e5e...' })

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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "cards_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesCard token

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation (checking validity) and lists returned fields, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or rate limits. It is adequate but not detailed.

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 extremely concise, with a single sentence stating purpose and an example. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description covers the return values (masked number, expiry, status). It is nearly complete, though error scenarios or validation constraints could add polish.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter described as 'Card token'. The description adds an example but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: validating a card token and returning card details (masked number, expiry, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cards_create or cards_verify, which have different functions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The example provides a usage pattern but does not differentiate it from siblings like cards_verify.

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