CDF Finance

Detalhe de fatura

get_invoice

Read-only

Detalhe completo de uma fatura de cartão específica: dados do cartão, os vínculos de transação (transactions) e as transações completas (fullTransactions, com categoria/parcela/etc). id é o id da fatura (CreditCardInvoice), não do cartão — para buscar pela fatura ativa de um cartão sem saber o id da fatura use invoice_for_period.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Id da fatura (CreditCardInvoice)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`card`	No
`year`	No
`month`	No
`cardId`	No
`isPaid`	No
`status`	No
`userId`	No
`dueDate`	No
`paidDate`	No
`createdAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`paidAmount`	No
`closingDate`	No
`totalAmount`	No
`transactions`	No
`fullTransactions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / id / description
```
Added value: +"Id da fatura (CreditCardInvoice)"
```
First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context: id is the CreditCardInvoice id, not the card id, and fullTransactions carry category/installment details. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the returned content and then add the critical id disambiguation and sibling routing. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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?

For a single-required-parameter read operation with an output schema available, the description covers everything needed: what the tool returns, how to interpret id, and which sibling to use when the id is unknown. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already describes id as 'Id da fatura (CreditCardInvoice)' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is solid. The description adds extra meaning by warning that id is not the card id and giving a fallback tool when only the card is known.

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 and resource: getting the full detail of a specific credit card invoice, enumerating the returned content (card data, transaction links, full transactions with category/installment fields). It also distinguishes itself from invoice_for_period by clarifying the id semantics, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use this tool: when trying to fetch the active invoice of a card without knowing the invoice id, use invoice_for_period instead. This gives the agent a clear routing decision and names the alternative directly.

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

All CDF Finance tools Inspect

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The tools are individually well-described and many cross-reference their closest neighbors, but the set contains several easily confused clusters: create_transaction/confirm_new_transaction, update_equity/add_equity_valuation, the invoice tools (current_invoice, next_invoice, list_pending_invoices, get_invoice), and the many analytics/projection tools. The descriptions help a careful reader, but with 81 tools an agent is likely to misselect among these overlapping surfaces.

Naming Consistency3/5

CRUD operations consistently use create_/list_/update_/delete_ plus a resource noun, and all names are snake_case. However, there is a large second group of noun-phrase analytics tools (cashflow_forecast, spending_projection, categories_insights, transport_routine) plus one-off verbs such as can_afford, pay_invoice, and validate_current_invoices, so the naming convention is mixed even though it remains readable.

Tool Count1/5

81 tools is far beyond the practical MCP tool surface and exceeds the rubric's 50+ extreme-mismatch threshold. Even if each tool maps to a real finance endpoint, the volume overwhelms an agent's context window and makes selection much harder.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the finance lifecycle extensively: accounts, cards, invoices, transactions, recurring rules, budgets, goals, debts, equities, categories, tags, cost centers, profile, projections, and insights all have working read/write paths. Minor gaps remain, such as no update/delete for tags and no direct update/delete for system-generated invoices, but agents can usually work around these.

Detalhe de fatura

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources