Credit GPS — Canadian credit

What the bureaus are about to see

reported_snapshot

Read-only

Per card: the balance in line to be reported at the next statement close, utilization, days left to change it, and the payment that would bring the card to target before it closes. This is the view that does not exist in a chat window — it is the difference between today's balance and the figure the issuer transmits. Use it when someone asks how their cards look, where they stand, or which card is the problem.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a forecast snapshot of what the issuer will likely transmit, and is described as a view that normally does not exist in a chat window. It does not contradict the annotations and clarifies the tool's non-mutating role.

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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the exact outputs, the second explains the conceptual value and when to use the tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the rich input schema, the presence of an output schema, and the annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential missing layer: what 'reported' means and when an agent should reach for this tool. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents cards, today, and targetUtilization in detail, including defaults and edge cases. The description adds conceptual framing but no per-parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with the precise deliverable: per-card balance in line to be reported, utilization, days left to change it, and the payment to hit target. It also frames the tool as the unique difference between today's balance and the figure the issuer transmits, which clearly separates it from sibling tools like simulate_paydown or statement_calendar.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it when someone asks how their cards look, where they stand, or which card is the problem.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the triggering conditions are specific enough to guide an agent.

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

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct Canadian credit question, from mechanics to calculators. Overlapping payment/utilization tools are clearly separated by current status (reported_snapshot), what-if (simulate_paydown), and recommendation (next_move). No two tools would return the same answer to the same query.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently snake_case and descriptive, but they mix noun phrases (close_card_impact, reported_snapshot) with verb-led phrases (find_statement_close_date, simulate_paydown). The pattern is readable and predictable, with minor grammatical inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools the server is one over the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool covers a distinct topic or calculation. The count feels heavy yet justified by the breadth of Canadian credit mechanics and calculators.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers foundational mechanics, retention, missed payments, newcomers, products, statement timing, and several calculators, so core workflows are supported. Obvious gaps remain around disputes, fraud alerts, and authorized-user questions, but these are workarounds rather than dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?