Skip to main content
Glama

Rede Celcoin 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. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. Added
  10. Removed
  11. Added
  12. Removed
  13. 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"
+}
  14. Added
  15. Removed
  16. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/idempotent/hints by disclosing that the bill payload carries no transactions by default, that transaction matching may be a low-confidence estimate, that totalAmount should not be rebuilt from transactions, and that a non-empty payments[] does not mean the bill was paid. These are essential behavioral warnings an agent cannot infer.

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 long but dense and every sentence earns its place by adding a behavior, caveat, or workflow detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields, then proceeds through optional transaction detail, matching caveats, and payment-status cautions in a logical order.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape and it does so well: bill fields, transaction arrays, transaction_count, transaction_sum, reconciles_with_total, a transactions_basis explanation, a batch shape, and a payment-status warning. The main behavioral warnings are included, making the tool safe to call correctly even though one param is not explicitly described.

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?

The description thoroughly explains bill_ids, account_id, and include_transactions, including why account_id is needed when transaction inclusion is used. However, it does not document the transactions_detail enum (compact/rich/raw). With 0% schema description coverage, that is a real but minor gap, so the description needs to compensate less than a perfect tool.

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 opens with a clear action and resource: returns bill-level detail for credit card bills by id (GET /bills/:id), and lists the specific returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openfinance_list_credit_card_bills and openfinance_list_transactions, which avoids selection ambiguity.

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 is explicit about when to use this tool vs alternatives: call openfinance_list_credit_card_bills first to discover bill IDs, and prefer the same sibling list for paid status because it derives payment_status. It also offers openfinance_list_transactions as an alternative for self-fetching transactions, giving clear routing guidance.

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

All Rede Celcoin 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 resources and actions, but several overlap in purpose: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, get_credit_card_bill vs list_credit_card_bills, and multiple connection/status tools expose reconnect URLs. The long descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always immediately obvious.

Naming Consistency4/5

The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent list_/get_ verb_noun pattern and share a clear prefix. The smaller platform cluster is less consistent — marketplace, connect, authenticate, show_version, toolkit_info — mixing nouns, bare verbs, and snake_case, but it is a minor deviation overall.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, this sits at the heavy end of acceptable. The Open Finance surface is broad enough to justify many of them, but there is redundancy (e.g. list_transactions_by_item largely wraps list_transactions plus account resolution) and a separate platform-management cluster that makes the set feel sprawling.

Completeness4/5

The Open Finance domain is well covered: connection lifecycle, accounts, balances, transactions, credit-card bills, loans, investments, categories, and provider status are all present, and data flows connect properly between tools. Minor gaps exist, such as no single-transaction fetch or dedicated prompt-management tools, but the marketplace tool fills those roles.

Resources