Prevent payment method expiration by marking it for extended retention. Use this action to keep a stored payment method active beyond its default lifespan.
Marks a payment method to be retained beyond the default retention period. This tool ONLY modifies retention status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment_method_token | Yes | The token of the payment method to retain |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds that it only modifies retention status. This is consistent and adds some context, but it does not provide additional behavioral details such as side effects or required permissions beyond what annotations offer.
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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies exclusivity. No unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and simple behavior, the description adequately covers what the tool does. However, it could optionally mention the implication of retaining a payment method or the default retention period, but it is mostly complete for its simplicity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (payment_method_token) already described. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of the parameter.
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 clearly states that the tool marks a payment method to be retained beyond the default retention period. This specifies both the action and the resource, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like spreedly_payment_method_update.
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?
The description explicitly says 'This tool ONLY modifies retention status,' which provides clear guidance on its exclusive use. It implies that for other modifications, other tools should be used, but it does not explicitly list alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.