Skip to main content
Glama

Itaú 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. 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"
+}
  6. Added
  7. Removed
  8. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotation coverage is good (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds usFe contexts that annotations cannot: the opt-in scan cost, the authoritative totalAmount, the reconciliation logic, the fact that Pluggy returns no paid/status field, and the warning that payments[] usually refers to the previous bill. These behavioral subtleties prevent misinvocation more effectively than annotations alone.

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 definition is long but every sentence earns its place: return fields, opt-in mechanism, basis semantics, authoritative totalAmount, batch shape, and common financial pitfalls. It is organized with in-line labels and warnings, and important usage restrictions are either front-loaded or highlighted with ALL-CAPS, aiding agent parsing.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the expected payload shapes, fields, batch shape, and possible transactions_basis values. It also gives the caller all necessary cross-tool references and caveats for correct credential invocation, making it complete for a complex credit-card bill tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It adds clear semantics for bill_ids, account_id, and include_transactions, explaining why account_id is needed for opt-in transactions. The only gap is `transactions_detail`, which is not explicitly described; the enum values are inferable but not elaborated.

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 bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id' and enumerates the key fields. It also distinguishes itself from openfinance_list_credit_card_bills and openfinance_list_transactions by naming those tools for discoveries and transaction fetch.

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?

Explicit and granular: tells the agent to pass bill_ids as an array and discover ids via openfinance_list_credit_card_bills; tells when to prefer openfinance_list_clean_card_bills for payment status; tells when to fetch transactions via openfinance_list_transactions. It explains prerequisites, costs, and the `transactions_basis` caveats.

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

All Itaú 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 Open Finance tools have clear list/get pairs for each resource (accounts, transactions, loans, investments, bills), but the marketplace tool is a monolith combining search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, and prompt library actions, causing ambiguity about which action to use. Additionally, openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item overlap in purpose but are distinguished by scope.

Naming Consistency3/5

The openfinance_* group follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (list, get, update, force_sync, etc.), but the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, show_version, report_bug, toolkit_info) use mixed bare verbs and nouns, creating two distinct conventions. Names like openfinance_list_transactions_by_item are longer but still consistent within the group.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is at the heavy end, but the Open Finance domain alone justifies 17 tools covering distinct resources and operations. The platform tools add 8 more, though the marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions into one, inflating the effective count. The number is borderline but not excessive given the breadth of banking functionality.

Completeness5/5

The Open Finance surface is comprehensive with list/get for every major resource, plus support for sync, status, search, categories, and category updates. The platform tools cover authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version, and toolkit state. No obvious gaps or dead ends in the workflow.

Resources