Skip to main content
Glama

Sam's Club MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_get_loan_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns full loan contract detail by id (GET /loans/:loanId): interestRates[] (taxType, ratePercentage, indexer), contractedFinanceCharges[], balloonPayments[], warranties[], installments schedule (installmentsCount, paidInstallments, numberOfInstallmentsRemaining, installmentFrequency), amortizationScheduled, CET, ipocCode and dates. Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract. Pass loan_ids as an array (1-50). { results, errors } batch shape.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loan_idsYes

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

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: batch processing (array of 1-50 IDs), error handling ('{ results, errors }'), and the extensive list of returned fields, going beyond 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?

The description is a single run-on sentence listing many fields, making it somewhat dense. While it conveys necessary information, it could be more concise and structured. The list of fields is exhaustive but not optimally formatted.

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 the tool's complexity (returns many fields) and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values by listing fields, explains usage context, and details batch behavior. It is complete for a read-only tool with one parameter.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It specifies 'Pass `loan_ids` as an array (1-50)', adding a size constraint and clarifying the batch nature. The justification could be stronger if it explained the format of each ID, but it adequately adds meaning.

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?

Description starts with 'Returns full loan contract detail by id', clearly stating the verb (Returns) and resource (loan contract detail). It distinguishes from sibling tools by advising 'Use after openfinance_list_loans', providing a specific context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract', giving clear when-to-use guidance. Does not mention when not to use, but the sibling list includes the prerequisite tool, making it clear.

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