braintree_customer_payment_methodsList the vaulted payment methods (credit cards, PayPal accounts, etc.) for one customer, by GraphQL global Customer ID. Returns each method's id, legacyId, usage, created-at, and detail type. GraphQL node { ... on Customer { paymentMethods } }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | GraphQL global Customer ID (opaque). | |
| first | No | Max payment methods to return. Default 50. |
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?
The description confirms the read-only nature (consistent with readOnlyHint: true) and adds specifics about the return type (id, legacyId, usage, etc.) and the GraphQL query. No annotations are contradicted. It provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation alone.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No extraneous information. Every sentence adds value—purpose, input, output, and underlying query. Highly efficient.
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?
For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input format, and return structure. It could mention pagination behavior (e.g., 'first' default) and ordering, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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%: both parameters (id, first) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'GraphQL global Customer ID' is already in schema; 'first' is already described). The description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
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 the action ('list'), the resource ('vaulted payment methods... for one customer'), and the input identifier ('GraphQL global Customer ID'). It also specifies the output fields and the underlying GraphQL query, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like braintree_find_customer or braintree_list_subscriptions.
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 implies usage context (listing payment methods for a customer) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling names provide some implicit guidance, but no direct when/when-not guidance is present.
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.
Tools are largely distinct, covering customers, payment methods, transactions, and subscriptions. However, 'list_subscriptions' uses transactions as a proxy, causing potential overlap with 'search_transactions' for customer-scoped searches.
All tools follow a consistent 'braintree_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., find_customer, search_transactions, refund_transaction). Verbs are sensible and uniform, making the set predictable.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a payment gateway. It covers core transaction and customer lookups, plus refund/void operations, without excessive bloat.
The set lacks essential CRUD operations like creating or updating customers, payment methods, or transactions. Subscriptions are only partially covered via a workaround, leaving notable gaps for a complete workflow.