Skip to main content
Glama

Sam's Club 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. 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"
+}
  12. Added
  13. Removed
  14. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the opt-in cost of a full transaction scan, the meaning of transactions_basis values, that totalAmount is authoritative and should not be rebuilt from transactions, and that payments[] does not necessarily imply current-bill payment. These are exactly the behavioral traps an agent needs to avoid.

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 long and dense, but almost every clause earns its place: it covers return fields, transaction matching rules, open-bill behavior, cost implications, alternatives, and payment-cycle semantics. It is front-loaded with the core return value and then builds outward, though the final note about Brazilian Open Finance payments is somewhat verbose.

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 still specifies the response envelope `{ results, errors }`, the key bill and transaction fields, the transaction matching basis, the fallback manual transaction-fetch path, and the cautions about paid status. This gives an agent or developer enough context to select and correctly invoke the tool without external documentation.

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 description coverage, the description strongly compensates: bill_ids is explained as an array requiring prior discovery, account_id is explained as required alongside include_transactions because the bill has no account reference, and include_transactions is explained as an opt-in. The only gap is the transactions_detail enum (compact/rich/raw), which is never mentioned in the description.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id (GET /bills/:id)' and lists concrete fields like dueDate, totalAmount, and payments[]. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by emphasizing bill-level detail rather than account/list-level summaries.

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 guidance: use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills first to discover bill IDs, use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills for derived payment_status, and use openfinance_list_transactions when manually fetching transactions. It also says when the transactions opt-in is appropriate and when the estimate basis applies.

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

All Sam's Club 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
Disambiguation4/5

The openfinance_* tools are mostly separated by resource (accounts, bills, loans, investments, connections), and the meta tools are distinct. The main ambiguities are openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, and openfinance_get_credit_card_bill vs openfinance_list_credit_card_bills, though their descriptions do clarify different intents.

Naming Consistency3/5

The openfinance_* family follows a consistent verb_noun pattern, and the generic platform tools use bare lowercase names like connect, authenticate, and marketplace. The mixed prefixes and the occasional singular/plural variation (get_credit_card_bill vs list_credit_card_bills) make the overall namespace readable but not fully uniform.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the heavy end and combines two distinct areas: platform/meta tooling and a deep Open Finance adapter. Most openfinance tools are justifed by real endpoints, but the count feels bulky for an agent to browse, and the marketplace tool packs an unusually large number of capabilities into a single entry.

Completeness4/5

The Open Finance surface is unusually complete: accounts, balances, transactions, credit-card bills, loans, investments, connection status, force sync, provider status, category correction, and disconnect are all present. The platform side is also broad via marketplace and toolkit_info, with only minor granularity gaps such as no dedicated get-single-transaction tool or separate marketplace sub-tools.

Resources