Skip to main content
Glama

Unicred 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. Added
  14. Removed
  15. 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"
+}
  16. Added
  17. Removed
  18. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) establish the safety profile, and the description adds far more: the fact that Pluggy does NOT return a paid/status field, the trap that payments[] typically reflects the PREVIOUS billing cycle, and the absolute rule 'the bill's own totalAmount is authoritative — do NOT rebuild it by summing transactions'. It also exposes the opt-in cost ('extra full transaction scan of the account') and the transactions_basis classification with confidence levels — all valuable behavior not present in any structured field.

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 (~350 words) but contains no filler; every sentence carries critical semantics — the payments trap, the basis classification, the opt-in cost, the two alternative-tool routes. It opens with purpose and high-value field list, which helps, but the long mid-section (transactions_basis) and the NOTEs at the end require an agent to parse a large block to get the full picture, skating in the 5 frame with the other two-sentence examples.

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 no output schema and a complex, high-risk financial domain, the description explains the batch shape ('{ results, errors }'), the transactions_hint exists, the full semantics of transactions_basis (exact vs date-window vs unavailable), how to use the opt-in path, and the 'no paid-status' caveat. For routine bill retrieval and for the optional purchase enrichment, an agent has everything to call correctly, with only the transactions_details enum truly unpubdefined.

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_parameter description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates for three of the four params: bill_ids (pass as array, discover first), account_id (required when including transactions because the bill carries no account reference), and include_transactions (fully elaborated: behavior, cost, extra fields returned). The one clear gap is its transactions_details enum (compact/rich/raw), which receives zero explanation in either the schema or 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 first sentence states the exact operation and resource — 'Returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id (GET /bills/:id)' — and enumerates the returned fields (dueDate, billClosingDate, totalAmount, financeCharges, payments[]). This is clearly differentiated from the sibling list_credit_card_bills (discovery) and list_transactions (transaction-level view).

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?

Provides explicit routing: 'use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills first to discover ids', 'you can also fetch them yourself via openfinance_list_transactions...' for the non opt-in path, and 'to check paid status, prefer openfinance_list_credit_card_bills'. It also gives the conditional for include-transactions (open/closed bill basis) and even names the kind-of alternative goal where a sibling is to be used instead.

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

All Unicred 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 clearly separated by resource and action—accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, and connection status—so an agent can usually tell them apart. A few pairs remain confusable, notably openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item and the monolithic marketplace tool overlapping with report_bug, but the detailed descriptions largely resolve the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

The openfinance_* subset follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun convention (list_accounts, get_item_status, update_transaction_category), and non-openfinance tools like report_bug and show_version fit the same style. The pattern breaks with bare verbs/nouns such as connect, authenticate, marketplace, and toolkit_info, but the domain prefix makes the majority predictable.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools sits at the top of the heavy-but-manageable range, and the Open Finance resource pairs plus platform/marketplace tools each earn some place. The count feels slightly bloated because marketplace bundles many capabilities and several status/sync tools could be consolidated, but the scope is broad enough that the number is defensible.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers the core Open Finance surface thoroughly: accounts, balances, transactions, credit-card bills, loans, investments, categories, connection lifecycle, sync, and provider health, plus marketplace and platform plumbing. Minor gaps exist—no direct connect-bank action beyond URLs, no per-transaction get endpoint, and some marketplace operations are only accessible through the single marketplace tool—but standard workflows are not dead-ended.

Resources