Skip to main content
Glama

Méliuz 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description surfaces several non-obvious behaviors: totalAmount is authoritative and should not be rebuilt by summing transactions, transactions_basis can be an estimate with low confidence, payments[] may refer to the previous bill rather than this one, and no paid/status field exists. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured: it leads with the operation and return shape, then adds opt-in behavior, dependencies, and cross-tool references, and closes with critical caveats. Every sentence adds a necessary constraint or disambiguates a likely misinterpretation.

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 covers response fields, batch shape, transaction basis modes, reconciliation warnings, dependency on account_id, and alternative tools. It is sufficiently complete to let an agent decide when to use this tool and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries most of the semantic burden and clearly explains bill_ids, account_id, and include_transactions. The only gap is transactions_detail, whose compact/rich/raw enum values are not explained in the description or schema.

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 states a specific operation: return bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by bill_ids, and it enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling listing tool because it consumes bill_ids and returns a single bill detail batch rather than a discovery list.

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 routing guidance: discover ids with openfinance_list_credit_card_bills, use openfinance_list_transactions for the transaction view, and prefer the sibling list tool when paid status is needed. It also explains when the include_transactions opt-in is appropriate and why it costs an extra scan.

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

All Méliuz 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation or data type (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, etc.) with no ambiguity. Even closely related tools like openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item are clearly differentiated by scope and output format.

Naming Consistency3/5

The majority of tools follow the 'openfinance_' prefix for banking operations, but utility tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break this pattern, creating an inconsistent mix. However, the convention is still readable and the utilities are clearly distinct.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is on the high side but well-justified by the breadth of Open Finance data types (accounts, transactions, credit cards, bills, loans, investments) and supporting operations (sync, status, search, updates). A few tools could potentially be merged, but overall the number is reasonable for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core Open Finance workflows: listing, reading details, syncing, updating categories, and checking provider status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to create or delete accounts/transactions), but these are external constraints. The set enables most user-facing financial queries and actions.

Resources