Skip to main content
Glama

Atacadão MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_get_loan_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns full loan contract detail by id (GET /loans/:loanId): interestRates[] (taxType, ratePercentage, indexer), contractedFinanceCharges[], balloonPayments[], warranties[], installments schedule (installmentsCount, paidInstallments, numberOfInstallmentsRemaining, installmentFrequency), amortizationScheduled, CET, ipocCode and dates. Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract. Pass loan_ids as an array (1-50). { results, errors } batch shape.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loan_idsYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations (which already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) by mentioning the HTTP method, path, and batch response shape with results and errors. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that lists many fields but remains efficient. It could be slightly more structured, but it avoids unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing key response fields and indicating the batch shape. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output, though some details like error statuses are omitted.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description explains that loan_ids should be passed as an array of strings with a limit of 1-50. This adds practical guidance beyond the schema type definition.

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 clearly states it returns full loan contract detail by ID, listing specific fields like interestRates, amortizationScheduled, etc. It distinguishes itself from openfinance_list_loans, which is a sibling tool for listing loans.

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 advises to use after openfinance_list_loans for deep-diving into a specific contract. It also specifies the array size limit of 1-50 and the batch shape. However, it does not mention alternative tools for other scenarios.

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

All Atacadão MCP 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct: openfinance_* tools cover specific resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments) with clear boundaries. Some overlap exists between list_transactions and list_transactions_by_item, and between status/sync tools (get_item_status, force_sync, provider_status), but descriptions are detailed enough to guide selection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The openfinance_* prefix provides strong consistency for the bulk of tools, with clear verb_noun patterns (list, get, update, force_sync). The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) break the pattern but are few and their names are intuitive. Overall, minor mixing of conventions but readable.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is on the higher side but appropriate for a comprehensive Open Finance and platform management server. The count includes both data access (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments) and platform utilities (authentication, connection state, marketplace). No redundant tools; each serves a clear purpose.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core read operations for connected banks (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments), connection management (sync, status, disconnect), and category correction. Minor gaps include no get-transaction-by-id and no update for account metadata, but these are not critical for the typical use case of a banking data aggregator.

Resources