Skip to main content
Glama

Midway 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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. Added
  10. Removed
  11. Added
  12. Removed
  13. Added
  14. Removed
  15. Added
  16. Removed
  17. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds the GET endpoint, the `{ results, errors }` batch shape, and the array limit, which are meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations.

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 thorough but well-organized with a colon to introduce field groups and a clear separation of purpose, usage, and batch format. It is longer than ideal, yet every sentence conveys necessary detail.

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?

For a read-only batch tool with no output schema, the description provides the return fields, parameter constraints, endpoint, and usage sibling. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining that `loan_ids` is an array (1-50) and that it is passed to the endpoint. This adds cardinality and usage semantics missing from the raw 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?

Clearly states it 'Returns full loan contract detail by id' and enumerates specific fields, distinguishing it from sibling openfinance_list_loans. The verb-resource pairing is precise and the batch nature is clarified.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract,' providing when-to-use context relative to its sibling. The parameter limit (1-50) further guides proper usage.

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

All Midway 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 openfinance_* family is largely well-differentiated by resource and action, but the monolithic `marketplace` tool bundles search, invoke, install, billing, and prompt-library actions into one name, creating ambiguity about where platform capabilities live. Additionally, `openfinance_list_transactions` and `openfinance_list_transactions_by_item` both return transaction data and could be misselected despite their different aggregation intent.

Naming Consistency3/5

The openfinance_* tools consistently follow a clear verb_noun pattern, which gives the majority of the surface a predictable shape. But the generic platform tools mix bare verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), nouns (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), and verb_noun names (`report_bug`, `show_version`), so the server has two naming dialects rather than one uniform convention.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, this sits right at the top of the heavy range, and the server genuinely spans two broad domains: MCP platform administration and Open Finance banking data. The count is defensible given the breadth, but it is not a lean or easily navigable surface for an agent.

Completeness4/5

The Open Finance side is quite complete, covering connections, accounts, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, categories, provider status, sync, and disconnection. The platform side covers authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, and versioning, though some marketplace sub-actions are packed into one tool and bank connection itself is only reachable through URLs returned by other tools.

Resources