A319 Captain reported Maintenance failed to follow procedures with applying an MEL that involved a potentially tripped circuit breaker. The Captain requested a review of the MEL procedures with Maintenance prior to accepting the aircraft for service.

Narrative

During my preflight review of the AML (Aircraft Maintenance Logbook) on Aircraft X in ZZZ; I noted a discrepancy that was entered two flights prior by the CA (Captain) in ZZZ. It read; 'ECAM FUEL L TK PUMP1 LOW PR.' The action taken by ZZZ Maintenance was entered as 'Checked and approved for deferral in accordance with MEL 28-XXX Wing Tank Fuel Pump LH #1. Entered in Logbook deferral Sheet. When I reviewed MEL 28-XXX in the MEL / CDL (Configuration Deviation List) manual I immediately determined that the maintenance action recorded in the AML did not meet the requirements of the MEL. Specifically; the first step in the procedures is to inspect the circuit breaker associated with the inoperative pump - in this case; Circuit Breaker N23. If the circuit breaker is tripped there are two possible courses of action; each with associated language that must be entered in the AML. If the circuit breaker is not tripped; an entry must be made in the AML stating; 'Circuit Breaker N23 confirmed not tripped prior to application of MEL;" - emphasis mine. As previously indicated; there was no AML entry that complied with these requirements of the MEL. I examined the N23 Circuit Breaker and determined that it was not tripped now. Also; the message ECAM FUEL L TK PUMP1 LOW PR remained in the ECAM Canceled Caution Display on the Status Page.I called ZZZ and informed them that there was a problem with the MEL entry. I was instructed to tell the AMT who was already at the aircraft working on unrelated discrepancies - missing fasteners. When he came to the flight deck I informed him that there was a problem with the AML entry for the FUEL L TK PUMP1 LOW PR discrepancy. He read the AML; then said it's on MEL and it's OK. The FO (First Officer) and I then both conveyed our understanding that the MEL required an inspection of the N23 Circuit Breaker before application of the MEL and a corresponding entry in the AML that was not there. He looked briefly at the MEL procedures; then reached up and turned on the Left Wing Tank #1 Pump. I was very uncomfortable with this action since I have been trained repeatedly during 37 years of military and commercial flying to never apply power - e.g.; push in a tripped circuit breaker - to a possibly malfunctioning fuel pump due to the risk of fire. While I understand that this may be part of a maintenance procedure; the AMT was not using any kind of job card and did not discuss this action with me in advance. The aircraft was fully loaded with passengers.After about a minute the AMT noted that the N23 Circuit Breaker had not tripped. He picked up the AML and wrote; 'Circuit breaker confirmed not tripped;' on the pink page below the existing entry. Then he said it's good now and attempted to hand me the AML. I replied; "No; its not;" at which point he turned around without saying a word and quickly left the aircraft with the AML. About 20 - 30 minutes later he returned and tossed the AML onto the center instrument pedestal; saying only one word - something like 'here' or 'done' - then immediately left again. The AML now had a new entry stating that the N23 Circuit Breaker was confirmed not tripped prior to application of the MEL.I called ZZZ Maintenance to ask how that was confirmed and they told me to call Maintenance Control. I also asked them to send a Maintenance Supervisor to talk to me. I then called Maintenance Control and had a lengthy discussion with a representative who searched an aircraft database and confirmed that the aircraft had not reported any tripped circuit breakers during the previous few flights. At that point I was comfortable that the requirements of the MEL were met as best as could be done now and I accepted the aircraft. The Maintenance Supervisor arrived and we had a good discussion of the situation. We departed shortly afterward on an uneventful flight. However; I remain deeply concerned about the actions of ZZZ Maintenance in handling both the original discrepancy and the deficiencies I identified in the AML entries.Cause - the perceived desire by Maintenance to defer correcting discrepancies by applying MELs whenever possible during the day. Suggestions - strict adherence to MEL procedures."