Skip to main content
Glama
fernando1501

bg-mcp

by fernando1501
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List savings account transactions

bg_list_transactions

Retrieve savings account transactions over a date range in Panama time, including pending purchases reported separately from posted movements. Use for account activity and spending review.

Instructions

Transactions for one savings account over a date range, with pagination handled internally. Dates are Panama local time. Also returns pending purchases ("Compras en proceso") — accepted but not yet posted. They are already out of the available balance, and are reported separately because they are not movements yet. For credit-card charges use bg_list_card_transactions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoCap the number of transactions returned. Omit to return all.
toDateYesDate in YYYY-MM-DD, interpreted in Panama local time.
fromDateYesDate in YYYY-MM-DD, interpreted in Panama local time.
portalIdYesSavings account portalId from bg_list_accounts.
includePendingNoInclude pending purchases ("Compras en proceso"). They have no posting date, so they are returned in full regardless of the date range.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / includePending
      Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Include pending purchases (\"Compras en proceso\"). They have no posting date, so they are returned in full regardless of the date range.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: pagination is handled internally, dates are Panama local time, and pending purchases are already deducted from available balance and reported separately. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, but discloses substantially more than the schema alone.

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?

Opens with what is returned, then adds timezone, pending-purchase semantics, and the sibling routing in tight succession. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior and return semantics — it explains that pending items are returned separately and why. It does not sketch the transaction record shape, but is close to complete for a read-only listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the Panama-time interpretation and includePending default. The description's reference to pending purchases slightly reinforces includePending's meaning but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (transactions) scoped to one savings account over a date range, and explicitly routes credit-card charges to the sibling bg_list_card_transactions. An agent can distinguish this from sibling list/search tools without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative for the most confusable case ('For credit-card charges use bg_list_card_transactions'), giving clear selection context. It stops short of exhaustive when/when-not guidance (e.g. vs bg_search_transactions), so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools