Credit GPS — Canadian credit

Calculate utilization from supplied balances

get_reported_snapshot

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when someone asks how their cards look, where they stand, or which card is the problem. Returns utilization from supplied balances, days to the supplied closing date, and a hypothetical payment to reach the target. It does not determine future bureau-reported balances. This is the difference between today's balance and the figure the issuer transmits. Calculates scenarios from supplied figures; does not make payments, change accounts, fetch external data, or retain tool inputs.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cards`	Yes	The person's revolving credit accounts. Ask for limit, statement balance, and statement closing date per card — those three drive everything.
`today`	No	Today's date in the person's local timezone, yyyy-mm-dd. Pass it — the server otherwise falls back to UTC, which is a day ahead for Canadian evenings.
`targetUtilization`	No	Target utilization as a decimal. Defaults to 0.29 — one point under the 30% band.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`band`	Yes
`cards`	Yes
`isEmpty`	Yes
`disclosure`	Yes
`totalLimit`	Yes
`assumptions`	Yes
`totalReported`	Yes
`blendedUtilization`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 25, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / cards / items / properties / payToTarget / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / cards / items / properties / payToTarget / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```
AddedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden. It still adds real value beyond them: it clarifies the tool is a pure calculation over supplied figures, makes no payments or account changes, fetches no external data, and retains no tool inputs — the last two being non-obvious data-handling behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the user-intent trigger, then outputs, then boundaries. Slightly redundant: 'It does not determine future bureau-reported balances' and 'This is the difference between today's balance and the figure the issuer transmits' say nearly the same thing, costing a sentence.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a pure calculation tool with a full schema, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and side-effect boundaries adequately. Return shape needs no explanation given the output schema. Only minor gap is not naming the sibling to use for bureau-reporting timing questions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the per-field docs (APR vs unknown, creditLimit 0 for charge cards, statementCloseDate semantics) are thorough, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'supplied balances' and 'supplied closing date' without adding format or default guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — it computes utilization from supplied balances, days to the supplied closing date, and a hypothetical payment to hit a target. It also draws a boundary against the sibling concept of bureau-reported balances (e.g., explain_when_issuers_report). It stops short of naming an actual sibling tool, so disambiguation is by concept rather than by name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete trigger language tied to user intent ('asks how their cards look, where they stand, or which card is the problem') plus an exclusion ('does not determine future bureau-reported balances'). No alternative tool is named, so the agent must still map the intent-to-sibling call itself.

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

All Credit GPS — Canadian credit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?