Skip to main content
Glama

Sicredi 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. 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds substantial context beyond that: it explains that transactions live on the account, not the bill; the extra scan cost of opt-in; the transactions_basis field distinguishing exact vs estimated linkage; and that totalAmount is authoritative and should not be summed. It also corrects a common misinterpretation about payments[]. No contradiction with annotations.

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 but well-structured, using line breaks and explicit sections. It front-loads the core purpose and then layers caveats and opt-in behavior. Every sentence carries important information; however, the length could be reduced by condensing some repetitions, such as the explanation of payments[]. Overall, it is efficiently written for its complexity.

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 complexity of 4 parameters, no output schema, and the need to disclose batch shape, transaction basis, and payment status semantics, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the response shape, error handling, the impact of the opt-in, and how to cross-check payment status via a sibling tool. The only minor gap is the transactions_detail enum, but that is a small omission against the rich context provided.

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 explains bill_ids (array, needed to specify which bills), account_id (required when include_transactions is true), and include_transactions (triggers opt-in with extra scan). However, the transactions_detail enum parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its meaning unclear. Since schema coverage is 0% and 3 of 4 parameters are explained with added semantics, this is strong but incomplete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id'. It names the exact endpoint and enumerates the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling openfinance_list_credit_card_bills by stating that tool is used to discover ids, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool (after discovering ids via openfinance_list_credit_card_bills) and when to fetch transactions via openfinance_list_transactions. It also instructs when to include the opt-in flag and account_id, and warns against interpreting payments[] as indicating this bill's payment status. Alternatives and exclusions are clear.

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

All Sicredi 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 have clearly distinct resource-action pairs, but several pairs overlap enough to cause misselection: authenticate vs connect, openfinance_list_accounts vs openfinance_get_accounts_detail, and openfinance_list_credit_card_bills vs openfinance_get_credit_card_bill. The long descriptions help, but the monolithic marketplace tool also mixes many sub-actions that overlap with report_bug and connection management.

Naming Consistency3/5

The openfinance_* tools mostly follow a consistent openfinance_<verb>_<noun> pattern, and the utility tools are all snake_case, but the conventions are mixed: marketplace is a bare noun, connect/authenticate are bare verbs, and openfinance_provider_status/toolkit_info lack a verb prefix. The pattern is readable but not uniform across the whole set.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, this sits at the top of the borderline-heavy range. The Open Finance domain justifies many of them, but the marketplace mega-tool plus several overlapping list/get variants make the set feel larger than necessary.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full Open Finance lifecycle well: connection search/status/sync/disconnect, accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, and category correction. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct payment/transfer initiation or single-transaction detail endpoint, but these are outside the apparent read/aggregate purpose and are workable around.

Resources