Skip to main content
Glama

Mercado Pago MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_get_loan_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns full loan contract detail by id (GET /loans/:loanId): interestRates[] (taxType, ratePercentage, indexer), contractedFinanceCharges[], balloonPayments[], warranties[], installments schedule (installmentsCount, paidInstallments, numberOfInstallmentsRemaining, installmentFrequency), amortizationScheduled, CET, ipocCode and dates. Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract. Pass loan_ids as an array (1-50). { results, errors } batch shape.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loan_idsYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds batch shape { results, errors } and array size limit, providing additional behavioral context like error handling and pagination.

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?

Description is a single paragraph that front-loads purpose, then lists fields, then gives usage guidance. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for fields) but is efficient and clear.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's usage completely: field list, batch shape, size limit, and use case. No gaps remain.

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 has one parameter loan_ids with no description. Description adds that it is an array of loan IDs with a size constraint (1-50), which is essential for correct usage. Could be more explicit about ID format, but sufficient.

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 clearly states it returns full loan contract detail by ID, enumerating many specific fields. It differentiates from sibling tool openfinance_list_loans by indicating this is for deep-diving into a specific contract.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract.' Provides batch shape and array size limit (1-50). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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

All Mercado Pago 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
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Even overlapping-looking tools like list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item are clearly differentiated (per-account vs consolidated per-connection), and get vs list variants follow standard conventions. The marketplace tool bundles multiple actions but is its own meta-tool. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

The openfinance_ prefix provides a consistent pattern for banking operations, with clear get/list/update/force_sync verbs. A few non-prefixed meta tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break the pattern, but they represent different functional domains and are still readable. Overall the convention is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, this is on the heavy side per the calibration guidelines (16-25 feels heavy). However, the breadth of Open Finance resources (accounts, transactions, investments, loans, credit cards, connections, plus meta operations) largely justifies the count. It's borderline and could benefit from consolidation, but it's not excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the domain comprehensively: listing and getting accounts, transactions, investments, loans, credit card bills, connections, status, sync, category management, and provider health. Missing operations are minor (e.g., no explicit 'get single transaction' but list covers it; no create/update on banking data besides category and disconnect). Core workflows are fully supported.

Resources