Skip to main content
Glama

Méliuz 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. 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"
+}
  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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavioral nuances: account `name` is the legal entity rather than the brand, `balance` has connector-dependent meaning, `balance_notice` indicates a non-zero outstanding amount, and provider_incident/identity_notice blocks affect data reliability and deduplication. These details prevent misinterpretation that structured annotations alone could not convey.

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 but well-structured: it front-loads the core return value and bank-name caveat, then covers usage rules and edge-case notices in a logical order. Every major paragraph adds necessary information, though a few sections could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates thoroughly by naming return fields, explaining aggregation across banks, clarifying the relationship with openfinance_list_credit_card_bills, and documenting reliability caveats. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results sensibly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter semantics, and it largely does: it explains `item` for single-bank targeting, `item_ids` for bulk execution, and the BANK/CREDIT type distinction. However, the singular `item_id` parameter is never mentioned, leaving a small but real gap in parameter documentation.

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 opening sentence clearly states that the tool returns accounts for bank connections, enumerates the account types (BANK and CREDIT), and lists key returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from openfinance_list_credit_card_bills by explaining that bill amounts come from a different tool, making its scope unambiguous.

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 selection rules: omit `item` to list across all banks, pass `item` for a single bank, and use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills for standardized bill amounts. It also tells the agent when values should not be trusted (balance_notice, provider_incident) and when force sync may reconcile stale fields. This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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