Skip to main content
Glama

Banco Master 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. 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"
+}
  4. Added
  5. Removed
  6. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only state `readOnlyHint`, `idempotentHint`, and `destructiveHint`; the descecription then supplies consequential behavior: `transactions_basis` meanings, the opt-in extra scan cost, the authoritative nature of `totalAmount`, the fact Pluggy/no paid/status middleware, and the critical ‘previous bill payment' semantics of `payments[]`. These are substantial CTB/behavioral disclosures beyond the structured fields.

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 text is heavily front-loaded: one-sentence purpose, then fields, then opt-in semantics, then ordering caveats. Every sentence carries useful information, but it is very long and could be tightened with bullets or a nested structure. The length is justified by the tool’s nuance, but it is not a model of concise editing.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains the `{ results, errors }` batch shape, the fields returned, the `transactions_basis` tri-state, the `transactions_hint` fallback, and the paid/status ambiguity. For a complex Brazilian Open Finance billing tool, this is enough context for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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-coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate. It enriches `bill_ids` (“use `openfinance_list_credit_card_bills` first”), `include_transactions` (triggers an extra opt-in transaction scan), and `account_id` (required only with include_transactions, because the bill has no account reference). It does not explain `transactions_detail`, though that parameter carries an enum that partially self-documents. Overall, the parameter description is strong but not complete.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id (GET /bills/:id)'. It names the returned fields (`dueDate`, `billClosingDate`, `totalAmount`, `financeChanges`, `payments[]`) and explicitly distinguishes itself from `openfinance_list_credit_card_bills` and `openfinance_list_transactions`, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: first call `openfinance_list_credit_card_bills` to discover `note`, when checking paid status 'prefer `openfinance_list_credit_card_bills`', and it provides an alternative route for transactions via `openfinance_list_transactions`. It also warns when to expect `transactions_basis=date_window` and when it should be `exact`, so usage context and alternative-rule selection are covered.

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

All Banco Master 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most openfinance_* tools are clearly separated by resource and action, and the long descriptions help, but several pairs can trip up an agent: authenticate/connect both deal with login/connection state, openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item sound nearly identical, and marketplace internally exposes report_bug/list_tools functions that also exist as top-level tools. This is more than a single ambiguous edge.

Naming Consistency3/5

The 19 openfinance_* tools follow a clean get_/list_/update_ pattern and are easy to navigate, but the platform-level tools break the convention: authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info, report_bug, and show_version mix bare verbs, nouns, and noun-noun compounds. The pattern is not chaotic, but it is definitely mixed.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is on the heavy end of the borderline range and is a large working set for an agent. The openfinance tools are individually justified and support batching, but the extra platform/marketplace tools add scope and some redundancy with report_bug and toolkit_info.

Completeness5/5

For a bank-data aggregation server, the surface is complete: connector discovery, linking/reconnecting/disconnecting, account lists and details, balances, transactions, categorization, credit-card bills, investments, loans, sync status, and provider health are all covered. There are no obvious dead ends in the main workflows.

Resources