Skip to main content
Glama

BV 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

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

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of batch shape and array limit adds moderate context. However, it does not significantly expand beyond the annotations' safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and efficient in covering purpose, usage, and return shape without extra fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists many return fields (interestRates, charges, balloonPayments, etc.) and notes the batch shape. It is fairly complete for a detail endpoint, though error handling or response status could be added.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds the limit '1-50' and clarifies the input type ('array'), but does not explain the meaning of each item or provide examples. This adds some value but not full compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('full loan contract detail by id'), clearly distinguishing its purpose from the sibling tool openfinance_list_loans by stating it is for deep-diving on a specific contract. The listed fields further specify the scope.

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 and mentions the batch limit (1-50 loan_ids) and output shape (`{ results, errors }`). While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear and sufficient.

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

All BV 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The openfinance_* tools are mostly distinct resource/action pairs, but several boundaries blur: openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item vs openfinance_get_credit_card_bill(include_transactions) all return transaction data, and openfinance_get_item_status / openfinance_provider_status / openfinance_list_connections all concern connection health. The monolithic marketplace tool also bundles search/describe/invoke/install/prompt-library operations, adding further ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The 19 openfinance_* tools follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_item_status, update_transaction_category), but the six platform tools break it with bare verbs (authenticate, connect) and noun-style names (marketplace, toolkit_info). The split is namespace-based and still readable, so it is only a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is on the heavy side, but the server spans two domains: an Open Finance banking surface (accounts, bills, loans, investments, connections) and a marketplace/platform layer (auth, search, prompts, bug reporting). Many openfinance tools are necessary for that breadth, though the count is high enough to feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

The Open Finance surface is nearly complete: connections can be searched, listed, disconnected, force-synced, and health-checked; accounts, transactions, bills, loans, and investments all have read/detail paths; transaction categories can be updated. Minor gaps exist, such as no granular marketplace tools outside the monolithic marketplace tool and no single-transaction detail endpoint, but core workflows do not dead-end.

Resources