Consulta um cartão tokenizado do cofre (vault) por card_id (não retorna o PAN).
Bulk support: accepts card_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| card_id | Yes | ||
| card_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool does not return the PAN and supports batch execution via card_ids. This goes beyond the annotations, but does not cover other potential behaviors like authentication or rate limits.
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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose and a key limitation, the second adds the bulk feature. No extraneous information; it is concise and front-loaded.
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 simple read operation, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and bulk support but omits explanation of the 'account' parameter and does not describe the return format. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains card_id (single lookup) and card_ids (bulk), but the 'account' parameter is left unexplained. Meaning is added for 2 out of 3 parameters, but incompletely.
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 it queries a tokenized card from the vault by card_id and notes that it does not return the PAN. It also mentions bulk support via card_ids. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getnet_list_customer_cards, which list cards by customer rather than by ID.
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 provides context (bulk support, no PAN) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when you need the PAN or a list of cards. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct function: Getnet-specific tools target different resources (cards, payments, customers, accounts), while platform tools handle authentication, connection status, marketplace lookup, bug reporting, and version info. There is no overlap in the actions they perform.
The Getnet tools follow a consistent `getnet_` prefix with verb_noun structure, but the platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) use a mix of bare verbs and noun phrases, and lack the prefix. This creates two divergent naming conventions within the same server.
With 11 tools, the server has a reasonable number for a mixed-purpose integration. However, the inclusion of platform-wide management tools alongside Getnet-specific ones makes the scope feel broader than a typical payment server, but the count itself is not excessive.
The Getnet-specific tools are read-only (list/get operations) with no ability to create, update, or delete customers, cards, or payments. This is a significant gap for a payment-related server, though the marketplace tool could potentially compensate by invoking other MCPs.