Skip to main content
Glama

Monte Bravo 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. Added
  4. Removed
  5. 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"
+}
  6. Added
  7. Removed
  8. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

While annotations already say readOnlyHint true and idempotentHint true, the description adds crucial behavioral context: transactions are opt-in and require account_id on case, transactions_basis can be bill_id or date_window with confidence, automatic account resolution may fail per-bill, and totalAmount is authoritative over transaction sums. This goes well beyond the 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 longer and dense, but each sentence has practical value; nothing is mere filler. It could be lightly tightened to reduce parenthetical verbal detours, so it loses one point for structure flowuality.

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 and a richer 4-parameter contract, the description takes on the full burden and succeeds: it covers response fields, opt-in behavior, account resolution failure handling, batch id use, and limitations. An agent has enough to call and interpret the result 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 independently explains all four parameters: there are bill IDs, account_id is optional but needed as include_transactions, include_transactions toggles enriched rows, and transactions_full compact/raw/rich are described by content/truncation behavior. It even warns about compact truncation limitations.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id' (GET /bills/:id). It lists the key returned fields (dueDate, billClosingDate, totalAmount, payments[]) and distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by emphasizing detail-by-id.

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 routes the agent to alternatives: use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills to discover ids, prefer openfinance_list_transactions when full itemized transactions are needed, and use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills for paid status. It also warns about payments[] being misread as payment status.

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

All Monte Bravo 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 target distinct resource/action pairs, but openfinance_list_connections and openfinance_get_item_status overlap on connection status/reconnect URLs, and openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item can be confused. The long descriptions reduce ambiguity, but selection risk remains.

Naming Consistency3/5

The openfinance_* block is consistently verb_noun, but the platform tools mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), and noun_info (toolkit_info). No single naming convention spans the whole set, though each subgroup is internally readable.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, this sits at the top of the heavy borderline range. The broad scope—MCP.AI platform management, prompt library, and Open Finance data—justifies many tools, but the set feels like a bundled suite rather than a tightly scoped single-purpose server.

Completeness4/5

The Open Finance side is well covered: accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, connections, sync, status, provider health, and category updates. The platform side has auth, toolkit info, marketplace, and feedback. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit identity fetch or payment initiation, but those seem outside the intended read/analysis domain.

Resources