Skip to main content
Glama

Banrisul MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir
OverviewAdmin

openfinance_get_credit_card_bill

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id (GET /bills/:id): dueDate, billClosingDate (when the cycle closed — the boundary that defines which purchases belong to this bill), totalAmount, financeCharges and payments[] (id, paymentDate, amount, valueType, paymentMode). ITEMIZED PURCHASES (OPT-IN): the bank's bill payload has no transactions in it — they live on the card ACCOUNT. Pass include_transactions:true (plus account_id of the credit card, since the bill itself carries no account reference) and each row also gets transactions[], transactions_count, transactions_sum and reconciles_with_total, already matched to that bill. Always check transactions_basis: bill_id = exact (the bank tagged each transaction with this bill — the normal case for CLOSED bills), date_window = ESTIMATE (confidence:'low', window echoed in transactions_window) used when the connector tags no billId or the bill is still open (PENDING lines get no billId until the cycle closes), unavailable = no link possible. Opt-in because it costs an extra full transaction scan of the account. Whatever the basis, the bill's own totalAmount is authoritative — do NOT rebuild it by summing transactions. Without the opt-in the response carries a transactions_hint; you can also fetch them yourself via openfinance_list_transactions with the credit card account_id and a from/to range ending at billClosingDate. Pass bill_ids as an array — use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills first to discover ids. { results, errors } batch shape. NOTE: Pluggy does NOT return a paid/status field. In Brazilian Open Finance, payments[] reflects payments registered during THIS bill's billing cycle — typically the payment of the PREVIOUS bill (do NOT assume this bill was paid just because payments[] is non-empty). To check paid status, prefer openfinance_list_credit_card_bills which derives payment_status via cross-bill match.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bill_idsYes
account_idNo
transactions_detailNo
include_transactionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_id
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_transactions
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / transactions_detail
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "rich",
+    "raw"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds high-value behavioral context beyond that: payments[] reflects payments registered during THIS bill's billing cycle (typically the previous bill's payment, so a non-empty payments[] does NOT mean this bill was paid); transactions_basis=date_window is an estimate flagged as ESTIMATE with transactions NOT matched to this bill; and it explicitly warns 'do NOT reconstruct the total by summing transactions.' These are genuine behavioral traps, not schema noise.

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 long but every paragraph earns its place: core fields, opt-in transactions mode, estimate-vs-exact semantics, optional enrichments, and the payment/paid-status clarification. There is mild redundancy (transactions_basis and transactions summary are explained twice in slightly re-wrapped sentences) and the text is dense, but it is front-loaded with the most important deduction and structured so an agent can stop reading once it understands the mode it needs.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, no schema descriptions, and no existing documentation, the description leaves nothing undetermined: it covers every parameter, the batch {results, errors} shape, the absence of a paid/status field, the transactions_basis estimate semantics, the closed-bill total-sum equality usefulness, and the fallback path for checking paid status. An agent can invoke this correctly with no additional external information.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the full burden falls on the description, and it delivers: bill_ids (array, discover via openfinance_list_credit_card_bills), include_transactions (opt-in, requires account_id), account_id (needed because the bill itself carries no account reference), and transactions_detail with both a rich/raw explanation and the dependency on the optional dot-fields precondition. The description even documents the unconditional alternative (fetch transactions yourself via openfinance_list_transactions) when the opt-in is declined.

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 opening sentence states a precise verb+resource: 'Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id (GET /bills/:id)' and enumerates the returned fields (dueDate, billClosingDate, totalAmount, financeCharges, payments). It differentiates itself from siblings by naming openfinance_list_credit_card_bills as the discovery tool, so an agent can tell this get-detail tool apart from the list/status tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is present throughout: 'Pass bill_ids as an array — use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills first to discover ids'; 'To check paid status, prefer openfinance_list_credit_card_bills which derives payment_status via cross-bill match'; and a direct anti-pattern warning: 'To filter by date, don't use include_transactions — the from/to filter is already supported at bill level by selecting the correct bill.' The description also explains why account_id is needed before enabling include_transactions, routing the agent correctly.

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

All Banrisul 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.

Resources