Skip to main content
Glama

RecargaPay MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir
OverviewAdmin

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. Added
  6. Removed
  7. 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"
+}
  8. Added
  9. Removed
  10. 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial context beyond those hints: transaction matching basis (bill_id vs date_window vs unavailable), the authoritative nature of totalAmount, the batch response shape, and the crucial nuance that payments[] does not imply this bill was paid. All of these are behavioral details an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is lengthy but every sentence adds value: core purpose, field enumeration, opt-in mechanics, basis explanation, cost warning, authoritative total, batch shape, and payment caveat. It is front-loaded with the main action and structured logically, with no redundant or tautological statements.

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, the description fully defines the return contract: fields, structures, transactions_basis values, and the batch shape. It also covers prerequisites (account_id for opt-in), alternatives, and common pitfalls (payments vs paid status). For a complex financial data tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 explain parameters. It clearly explains bill_ids (array, discover via list), account_id (required for include_transactions because the bill lacks account reference), and include_transactions (with cost and behavior). However, transactions_detail (enum: compact/rich/raw) is left unexplained, relying solely on the enum values—a minor gap given the zero coverage.

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 the tool's action: 'Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id (GET /bills/:id)' and lists the specific fields returned. It also differentiates from sibling tools, such as openfinance_list_credit_card_bills for discovery and openfinance_list_transactions for manual transaction fetching, making it easy for an agent to distinguish this from alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the include_transactions opt-in, including the cost trade-off ('extra full transaction scan'), and directs the agent to use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills first to discover ids. It also offers an alternative approach via openfinance_list_transactions and clarifies the payment-status caveat, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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

All RecargaPay 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.

Resources