Skip to main content
Glama

Banco Bmg MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_list_investments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the investment portfolio for a connection (broker or bank with INVESTMENTS product enabled): FIIs, stocks, ETFs, fixed income (CDB/LCI/LCA/Tesouro), mutual funds, retirement (previdência) and COE. Each row carries balance, amount, amountOriginal, amountProfit, lastMonthRate / annualRate / lastTwelveMonthsRate (when available), dueDate, issuer, ISIN, etc. Returns { total:0, results:[], warning } instead of throwing when INVESTMENTS isn't enabled (403) or other upstream errors. DATA INTEGRITY: when MULTIPLE positions come back as TOTAL_WITHDRAWAL with balance/quantity 0 at once (mass zeroing), the tool cross-checks each position's own transaction history upstream; if the zeroing is contradicted (BUY with no sale/redemption/transfer) the response carries data_integrity_warning and the affected rows are flagged integrity:'suspect_zeroed' — treat those balances as UNAVAILABLE (likely a temporary connector failure publishing zeros), never as real R$0, and do NOT sum them into the portfolio.

Bulk support: accepts item_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemNo
pageNo
typeNo
item_idNo
item_idsNo
page_sizeNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical detail: error handling (returns warning instead of throwing on 403), data integrity cross-checks for suspect zeroed rows, and explicit instructions to exclude those from portfolio sums. This goes well beyond 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 front-loaded with purpose and includes detailed integrity warnings. While long, each sentence adds value; however, it could be more structured with separate sections for parameters and output.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description covers key response fields (balance, amount, etc.) and error handling. However, the lack of parameter documentation leaves gaps, especially with 0% schema coverage. The tool complexity demands more complete parameter descriptions.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'item_ids' for bulk support, ignoring the other 5 parameters (item, page, type, item_id, page_size). It fails to add meaning for most parameters.

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 that the tool returns the investment portfolio for a connection, listing specific asset types (FIIs, stocks, ETFs, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_investment_transactions by focusing on positions rather than transactions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for obtaining portfolio data but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It hints at bulk support via item_ids but lacks clear context for exclusion.

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

All Banco Bmg 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
Disambiguation3/5

The openfinance_ tools are mostly distinct by resource/action, but there are several overlapping pairs: list_accounts vs get_accounts_detail, list_credit_card_bills vs get_credit_card_bill, list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, and connect vs toolkit_info vs openfinance_list_connections. The descriptions help disambiguate, but an agent could still misselect between these related tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The core banking tools consistently follow an openfinance_<verb>_<noun> pattern, which is a strong and readable convention. The generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break that pattern and use mixed naming styles, creating two distinct naming tiers within the same server.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools sits at the upper borderline of what feels reasonable for one server. The Open Finance domain justifies many read/query tools, but the inclusion of platform meta-tools like marketplace, connect, toolkit_info, report_bug, and show_version inflates the count beyond a tightly focused bank-data scope.

Completeness4/5

The Open Finance surface is largely complete: connectors, sync, disconnect, accounts, balances, transactions, categorization, credit card bills, loans, investments, and provider status are all covered. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a dedicated investment detail endpoint and limited consent/permission introspection, but agents can work around these with the existing tools.

Resources