getnet_list_customers
Read-onlyIdempotent
Lista clientes cadastrados. Paginado por page/limit.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| account | No |
Getnet
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds pagination context (page/limit) but does not disclose other traits like authentication needs or response format.
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?
Two very short sentences, using markdown for parameter names. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose and pagination details.
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?
Given no output schema and simple tool, description covers basic purpose and pagination but lacks account parameter explanation and usage context, making it adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions page and limit for pagination but completely omits the 'account' parameter, leaving its purpose unclear.
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 clearly states it lists registered customers and mentions pagination, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like getnet_list_accounts. The verb 'Lista' and resource 'clientes cadastrados' are specific.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Only implies usage via the pagination note, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency2/5
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.
Tool Count4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.