Skip to main content
Glama

EQI 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
  8. Removed
  9. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. Description adds batch shape with results/errors, array size constraint (1-50). This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Description is compact with two sentences. First sentence states purpose and lists key fields; second provides usage guidance and input constraints. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, description enumerates many returned fields (interestRates, warranties, etc.) and specifies batch shape. Lacks details on field semantics (e.g., CET, ipocCode) but adequate for a detail retrieval tool with annotations.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% so description must compensate. Description adds that loan_ids is an array (1-50) and the field name implies loan IDs, but no format or example given. Baseline 4 for 0 params not applicable since one param exists; compensation is partial.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Returns full loan contract detail by id' and lists specific fields like interestRates, warranties, installments. Clearly distinguishes from sibling openfinance_list_loans with 'Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract'.

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?

Provides clear guidance: 'Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract'. Implicitly indicates when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives for other detail tools.

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