Skip to main content
Glama

EQI MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_list_accounts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns accounts for a bank connection: BANK (checking/savings) and CREDIT (credit card) with balance, number, type, subtype, bankData, and creditData. Also returns bank (the brand/connector name like 'Nubank Empresas' — same shown in the dashboard UI) and connector_id. Note: each account's name is the legal entity that issues the account (e.g. 'Nu Pagamentos S.A. - Instituição de Pagamento'), which is not the same as the brand — when referring to the bank in user-facing text, use bank. OMIT item to list accounts across ALL linked banks at once — the response aggregates every connection's accounts into results, each row tagged with its own bank/connector_id/item_id (use this when the user asks for 'my accounts/cards' without naming a bank). Pass item to target a single bank (response carries bank/connector_id/item_id at the root). CREDIT (credit card) balance: its meaning is CONNECTOR-DEPENDENT — some banks report the current open-bill partial, others the full revolving/installment debt — so do NOT treat balance as 'this month's bill'. The open billing cycle is defined by creditData.balanceCloseDate (when it closes) / balanceDueDate (when it's due). For a standardized open-bill amount and total debt that mean the same across connectors, use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills (open_bill + total_pending_debt, derived from PENDING transactions); closed bills come from that same tool's results. A CREDIT row may carry creditData.usedAmount (how much of THIS card's limit the bank reports as consumed) and a balance_notice. balance_notice means balance came back 0,00 while the bank's own payload indicates an outstanding amount — some issuers never fill the card's consolidated balance field. When it is present, do NOT tell the user the card has nothing to pay: read the amount from openfinance_list_credit_card_bills instead. bankData.closingBalance and automaticallyInvestedBalance are provider-reported extras that can LAG right after a connection is first created: the bank may publish the connection as UPDATED before those derived fields converge, so they can briefly carry a stale/phantom value that a force sync (openfinance_force_sync) reconciles. The account's own balance is authoritative — treat those two as hints until they agree with it. May include a provider_incident block when the Open Finance provider has an OPEN incident affecting a bank in this response: balances and credit limits may be unreliable (incomplete or wrong, e.g. a credit limit near 1,00) even with the connection UPDATED, until the provider recovers. Do not present those values as real. May include an identity_notice when the SAME account (same number) arrives via two connections stamped with DIFFERENT owner/taxNumber: in Open Finance those fields reflect each connection's CONSENT HOLDER (e.g. a joint account consented by both holders), so dedupe by account number before summing balances and do not attribute ownership by owner/taxNumber for those accounts.

Bulk support: accepts item_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemNo
typeNo
item_idNo
item_idsNo

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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / item_id
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / item_ids
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  10. Added
  11. Removed
  12. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: credit `balance` is connector-dependent and must not be treated as the monthly bill, `balance_notice` signals a zero balance that is not trustworthy, `bankData.closingBalance` and `automaticallyInvestedBalance` can lag, `provider_incident` invalidates displayed values, and `identity_notice` requires deduplicating by account number. This far exceeds the safety profile in the 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 long and dense, but it is front-loaded with the core return value and then layers caveats in a logical order: name vs. brand, item aggregation, credit balance semantics, notices, incidents, and bulk support. Almost every sentence earns its place for this complex, money-sensitive tool, though the wall-of-text format could be tighter or better structured without losing needed detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on substantial burden and largely succeeds: it covers response shape, parameter-driven aggregation, field meanings, edge cases, notices, provider incidents, and sibling-tool handoffs. Gaps remain only around fully explaining `type` and `item_id`, and the lack of a structured return schema makes the prose essential. Overall, this is a strong, near-complete definition.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It clearly explains `item` vs. omitting it and mentions `item_ids` for bulk execution. However, it does not explicitly explain the `type` filter parameter or the singular `item_id` parameter, leaving those semantically underspecified despite the otherwise thorough prose.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns accounts for a bank connection: BANK ... and CREDIT ...' and enumerates the returned fields including `bank`, `connector_id`, `bankData`, and `creditData`. It also distinguishes the aggregate-all-banks behavior from single-bank behavior and differentiates this tool from openfinance_list_credit_card_bills, so an agent can tell what it does and what it is not.

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 gives explicit usage direction: 'OMIT `item` to list accounts across ALL linked banks at once' and 'Pass `item` to target a single bank', including a user-prompt cue ('my accounts/cards'). It also names alternatives for related needs, such as using openfinance_list_credit_card_bills for standardized open-bill and total debt, and openfinance_force_sync for reconciling stale fields. No such guidance is left to inference.

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