Skip to main content
Glama

Banco PAN 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. 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"
+}
  4. Added
  5. Removed
  6. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the bill payload contains no transactions (they live on the account), transactions_basis is exact versus ESTIMATE with confidence:'low', totalAmount is authoritative and should not be rebuilt, Pluggy returns no paid/status field, and payments[] refer to the previous bill's payment by definition. These are critical non-obvious behaviors 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence genuinely earns its place and the main purpose is front-loaded, but the description is an extremely dense ~330-word single paragraph without paragraphs, headings, or bullet separation, which hurts scannability. The information is high-value but the structural formatting is poor.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the high complexity — no output schema, four parameters, non-obvious payment semantics, the transactions_basis nuance, the Open Finance quirks — the description is nearly complete. It even discloses the batch {results, errors} shape and the confidence marker. The only notable gap is the undocumented transactions_detail parameter and the absence of a minimal example invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — it does for bill_ids ('pass as an array; use list first to discover ids'), account_id (required because the bill carries no account reference), and include_transactions (what it does, plus the transactions fields it adds). However, transactions_detail (compact/rich/raw), a meaningful enum, is never described, leaving one of four parameters semantically unclear.

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 specifies the verb ('Returns'), the resource ('bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id'), and the exact fields returned (dueDate, billClosingDate, totalAmount, financeCharges, payments[]). It also names the sibling list tool (openfinance_list_credit_card_bills) and positions itself relative to it, so an agent can distinguish it without opening another schema.

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 explicitly guides when to use the opt-in transactions mode, when not to (do NOT reconstruct totalAmount by summing), how to discover ids via openfinance_list_credit_card_bills, and when to prefer that sibling for paid status. It also names openfinance_list_transactions as an alternative for fetching purchases directly. Alternatives and selection criteria are spelled out with nothing left to inference.

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

All Banco PAN 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
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are mostly distinct, covering authentication, marketplace navigation, Open Finance data retrieval (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments), and status/connector management. Some overlap exists between openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item (both return transactions, but the latter is a consolidated summary), which could cause momentary confusion, though descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a clear pattern: 'openfinance_' prefix for Open Finance operations, with consistent verb_noun structure (list_accounts, get_account_balance, update_transaction_category). However, there are a few outliers like 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', and 'show_version' that don't follow the Open Finance naming convention, though they serve different purposes and are still readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 25 tools, the count is slightly high but justifiable given the broad scope: the server covers Open Finance banking data (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections), marketplace operations, and system utilities. Not all tools are used in every session, but each serves a distinct purpose, and the count remains manageable due to clear grouping.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core Open Finance lifecycle well: list and get accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, plus sync, reconnect, and category updates. It also includes connector search and provider status. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for updating or deleting a transaction category rule, and no direct CRUD for connections (only list and disconnect), but these are acceptable gaps.

Resources