Skip to main content
Glama

Monte Bravo 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. Added
  4. Removed
  5. 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"
+}
  6. Added
  7. Removed
  8. 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 connector-dependent balance semantics, `balance_notice` meaning, stale/phantom `bankData` fields after connection creation, `provider_incident` reliability caveats, and `identity_notice` consent-holder deduplication instructions. These are actionable warnings that materially change how an agent should present results.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each paragraph covers a distinct, important caveat. It is long, but the length is mostly justified by the tool's complexity and the lack of an output schema; a few warnings could be compressed.

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?

Given no output schema and a complex tool, the description covers returned fields, parameter behavior, cross-tool routing, and edge cases such as provider incidents, stale balances, and duplicate accounts. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly, including what not to do with the results.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining the semantics of `item` (present = single bank, omitted = all banks), `item_ids` (bulk execution), and BANK/CREDIT as account categories. It falls slightly short by never explicitly stating that `type` filters the response and by not explaining the input `item_id` parameter or its relationship to `item`.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns'), a concrete resource ('accounts for a bank connection'), and the two account categories (BANK/CREDIT) with the fields returned. It also clarifies the brand/legal-entity naming distinction and differentiates single-bank vs all-banks scope, so an agent can distinguish it from list_transactions or get_accounts_detail.

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 decision rules: omit `item` when the user asks for accounts/cards across banks, pass `item` to target one bank, and use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills for standardized open-bill amounts/total debt instead of treating `balance` as the bill. It also points to openfinance_force_sync to reconcile lagging derived fields.

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