Skip to main content
Glama

Pagar.me

by io.github.mcp-dir

pagarme_subscriptions_write_update_billing_date

Criar/operar assinaturas no Pagar.me V5 (só sk_; não-destrutivas). Ações:

  • create: cria assinatura (data: customer_id/customer, plan_id ou items[], payment_method, card_id, …).

  • update_card: altera cartão (requer subscription_id; data).

  • update_payment_method: altera meio de pagamento (requer subscription_id; data).

  • update_billing_date: altera data de cobrança (requer subscription_id; data).

  • add_item: adiciona item (requer subscription_id; data).

  • add_usage: registra uso de item medido (requer subscription_id + item_id; data opcional).

[Flattened action: update_billing_date]

Bulk support: accepts subscription_ids, item_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo
item_idNo
item_idsNo
subscription_idNo
subscription_idsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive write, which aligns with the description's 'não-destrutivas' claim. However, the description claims the tool can perform multiple actions (including create) without clarifying that only update_billing_date is active. This contradicts the tool name and creates behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with a list of actions and a flattening note, which helps readability. However, it includes extraneous details about other actions that dilute the core purpose, making it longer than necessary.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return format or behavior (e.g., success response, error handling). Bulk support is mentioned but without context on how it works. The description leaves significant gaps for a write tool.

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%, and the description only mentions the 'data' and 'subscription_id' parameters for the billing date update. Other parameters (account, item_id, etc.) are not explained, and their relevance to this action is unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description lists multiple actions (create, update_card, etc.) but the tool is specifically for update_billing_date. The 'Flattened action' note attempts to clarify, but the bulk of the description implies a broader scope, making it vague which action the tool actually executes. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like pagarme_subscriptions_write_create or pagarme_subscriptions_write_update_card.

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?

The description hints at required parameters for update_billing_date (subscription_id, data), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also includes other actions that may not be available, misleading the agent about the tool's actual capabilities.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Pagar.me toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The flattened action pattern creates dozens of tools with nearly identical descriptions (e.g., pagarme_charges_get, pagarme_charges_list, pagarme_charges_summary, pagarme_charges_get_many all share the same description except for the action name). An agent cannot easily distinguish which tool performs which specific read operation without parsing the final action line.

Naming Consistency3/5

The Pagar.me API tools follow a consistent pagarme_<entity>_<action> pattern, but the meta-tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) break the pattern. Additionally, the write/read split is not uniformly applied (some entities separate get/list into tools while others combine them).

Tool Count1/5

86 tools is extremely high for any server. Most of these are redundant: the same operations could be exposed via 5-10 parameterized tools. The flattened action approach inflates the count unnecessarily, creating cognitive overload and search cost for agents.

Completeness3/5

The Pagar.me V5 API coverage is fairly comprehensive across cards, charges, customers, orders, subscriptions, plans, recipients, transfers, and payables. However, the legacy V1-V4 tools duplicate many V5 operations, and there are minor gaps (e.g., no update for cards, no delete for subscriptions). The meta-tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) are unrelated to the payment domain, making the surface feel unfocused.

Resources