Skip to main content
Glama

EQI MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

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. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. 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"
+}
  10. Added
  11. Removed
  12. 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 tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the opt-in transaction fetch with extra cost, the transactions_basis field explaining how transactions are linked (bill_id vs date_window vs unavailable), the authoritative nature of totalAmount, and the warning about payments[] not indicating this bill's paid status. This goes well beyond the annotations and is crucial for correct usage.

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?

The description is long but densely informative, with each sentence contributing value. It is well-structured: main purpose first, then optional behavior, then important caveats and alternatives. No redundant statements; the length is justified by the complexity of the tool and the domain-specific nuances (e.g., payment interpretation, transaction basis).

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the response shape: bill-level fields (dueDate, billClosingDate, totalAmount, financeCharges, payments[]), optional transaction details (transactions[], transactions_count, transactions_sum, reconciles_with_total), the batch { results, errors } shape, and the transactions_basis field with its possible values. It also covers edge cases like open bills and missing billId, and provides guidance on checking paid status via a sibling tool. This is complete for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains bill_ids (array to be discovered via list), account_id (required for include_transactions), and include_transactions (opt-in for transactions). However, the transactions_detail parameter (enum: compact, rich, raw) is not mentioned in the description, leaving its meaning implicit. Still, the description adds significant meaning for the other three 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 the tool returns bill-level detail for credit card bills by id, listing specific fields (dueDate, billClosingDate, totalAmount, payments). It distinguishes itself from siblings like openfinance_list_credit_card_bills (which lists bills) and openfinance_list_transactions (which fetches transactions) by focusing on single/multiple bill retrieval with optional transaction inclusion.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it recommends using openfinance_list_credit_card_bills first to discover bill ids, explains the optional include_transactions and account_id parameters for fetching transactions, and points to openfinance_list_transactions as an alternative for fetching transactions outside this tool. It also clarifies the distinction between bill-level and transaction-level data.

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

All EQI 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

The openfinance_* tools are clearly separated by resource and action, and their detailed descriptions make most choices unambiguous. However, marketplace is a multi-action mega-tool that duplicates report_bug, and openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item have some overlap that could cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The 19 openfinance_* tools follow a consistent and predictable 'openfinance_<verb>_<noun>' pattern. The non-openfinance tools are a mixed set (marketplace, toolkit_info, show_version, report_bug, authenticate, connect), which is readable but not fully uniform.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools lands right at the heavy end of the borderline range. The Open Finance domain genuinely has many distinct resources, but the marketplace tool alone packs in many sub-actions, which makes the total tool count feel more bloated than the domain strictly requires.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full Open Finance lifecycle well: connections, sync/disconnect, accounts, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, categories, provider health, and platform administration. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct connect/add-bank tool beyond returning a connect_url and no get-single-transaction endpoint, but agents can work around these.

Resources