Skip to main content
Glama

Stone Pagamentos 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. 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"
+}
  10. Added
  11. Removed
  12. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the transactions_basis field (bill_id exact vs date_window estimate vs unavailable), the note that totalAmount is authoritative and should not be rebuilt, the fact that PENDING lines get no billId until cycle close, and the Pluggy limitation of no paid/status field. It also explains the batch response shape and the meaning of payments[] relative to billing cycles. This goes well beyond annotations and gives the agent critical context.

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 every sentence carries unique value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively explains the opt-in, the transactions_basis logic, the caveats, and the connectivity to sibling tools. The structure uses paragraphs and explicit note markers to separate concepts, making it scannable despite its length. No filler or repetition.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must describe the response shape, and it does: dueDate, billClosingDate, totalAmount, financeCharges, payments[], and the optional transactions[] aggregates. It also covers edge cases (open bills, PENDING lines, estimate windows) and provides actionable guidance (how to verify payment status, how to fetch transactions manually). For a tool with this complexity, the description is exceptionally complete.

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 must explain all parameters. It clearly explains bill_ids (array, discovered via list_credit_card_bills), account_id (required for include_transactions because the bill carries no account reference), and include_transactions (opt-in, with rationale). However, it does not explain the transactions_detail parameter (enum: compact, rich, raw), which is a gap. Given the thoroughness on three of four parameters, this deserves a 4 rather than 3.

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 precise statement: 'Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id (GET /bills/:id)', naming the verb, resource, and endpoint. It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling openfinance_list_credit_card_bills (which discovers ids) and is clearly a read-only retrieval tool. The purpose is unambiguous and non-tautological.

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 on when to use this tool: 'use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills first to discover ids' and explains the opt-in condition for include_transactions, the cost of that opt-in, and the alternative of fetching transactions via openfinance_list_transactions. It also warns against assuming this bill was paid based on payments[] and recommends using list_credit_card_bills for payment status. These are clear when/when-not directives with named alternatives.

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

All Stone Pagamentos 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially within the openfinance_* group (list vs get vs sync vs status). A few potential overlaps exist (e.g., openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, openfinance_get_account_balance vs openfinance_list_accounts), but descriptions are detailed enough to guide correct selection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., openfinance_list_accounts, openfinance_get_item_status). However, non-openfinance tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) use a different style, and one tool (openfinance_list_transactions_by_item) breaks the pattern slightly. Overall readable and predictable within the primary domain.

Tool Count3/5

With 25 tools, the count is on the heavy side per the calibration rubric (16-25 feels heavy). The server covers a broad financial data domain, which justifies the number, but it may present a steep learning curve and potential overwhelm for agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for read-only Open Finance data access: accounts, transactions, balances, bills, loans, investments, category management, connection lifecycle, and status monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct payment initiation, no investment transaction creation), but for the stated purpose of data and analysis, coverage is strong.

Resources