Skip to main content
Glama

BTGPactual MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_get_accounts_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns full account objects including extended creditData (additional cards, limits) per id (GET /accounts/:id). Pass account_ids as an array (1–50). { results, errors } batch shape. May include a provider_incident block when the Open Finance provider has an OPEN incident affecting a connected bank: credit limits and balances may be unreliable (e.g. a limit near 1,00) until the provider recovers. Do not present those values as real.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idsYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. Added
  10. Removed
  11. Added
  12. Removed
  13. Added
  14. Removed
  15. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral context: the batch shape with { results, errors }, the potential 'provider_incident' block, and a warning not to present unreliable values. This fully discloses behavior and limitations.

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 concise with 3 sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds important warnings. However, the structure could be improved by separating the batch shape detail from the warning.

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 the tool's complexity (batch, provider incidents) and absence of output schema, the description covers key aspects: batch shape, error handling, and unreliable data warnings. However, it lacks explicit return format details and does not describe the output structure beyond mentioning blocks.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal parameter detail: only that account_ids is an array (1–50). It does not explain the format of IDs or any constraints beyond length. This is insufficient for a parameter that requires specific values.

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 the tool returns full account objects with extended creditData per ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'openfinance_list_accounts', which likely returns a summary list. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'account objects' are specific.

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 instructs to pass 'account_ids' as an array (1–50). It implies use for detailed account retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like 'openfinance_list_accounts' for listing.

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

All BTGPactual 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The openfinance_* family is well-decomposed by resource (accounts, transactions, bills, investments, loans, connections) and by action (list, get, update, sync, disconnect), and the highly detailed descriptions make each tool's boundaries clear. A few pairs can be confused at a glance (list_accounts vs. get_account_balance, list_transactions vs. list_transactions_by_item, connect vs. toolkit_info), but the semantics are ultimately distinguishable.

Naming Consistency3/5

The openfinance_* group follows a strong and consistent verb_noun pattern (list_transactions, get_item_status, force_sync). However, the platform-level tools are a mixed bag—authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info, show_version, report_bug—so there is no single predictable naming scheme across the whole server.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy/borderline boundary, though most of the surface area is genuinely needed for Open Finance reads and connection lifecycle management. Some functions overlap (list_accounts returns balances that get_account_balance also exposes), making the set feel slightly bloated and closer to a two-in-one platform (Open Finance + marketplace).

Completeness4/5

The server covers the full Open Finance discovery and connectivity lifecycle: search, reconnect, force sync, provider health, accounts, transactions, credit cards, investments, loans, and category correction. Gaps like initiating a new connection or executing financial movements are handled through connect URLs rather than direct tools, so the unavoidable dead-end is likely workable and the core read/aggregate domain is well covered.

Resources