Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Analyzera

by com.analyzera
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List strategies and accounts

list_portfolios
Read-onlyIdempotent

List everything the client can see, as rows.

Three groups: 'accounts' (money the client holds), 'mine' (strategies this client
built, here or in the web app) and 'analyzera' (the provider catalogue, narrowed
by the client's currency and jurisdiction). Accounts and own strategies come as
rows with their ids; the catalogue comes as counts per asset class, and
``find_portfolios`` searches it. A shortened catalogue carries ``shelf_note`` with
the reason. An account held at another institution carries ``held_elsewhere``,
with the ``source`` and ``account_ref`` that ``sync_external_account`` updates it by.

Draws nothing. ``open_dashboard`` shows the same list in the card.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_portfolios"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
person_idNoThe id of one person, family or entity this login holds. Omit for everything this login holds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: 'Draws nothing', rows-vs-counts granularity per group, and the presence of `shelf_note` and `held_elsewhere` markers with the fields `sync_external_account` keys on. It stops short of describing ordering or result-size limits.

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 core output shape is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the group breakdown and then the caveats about alternative tools. It's dense but every clause carries information; the line breaks and double-backtick markup add a little visual noise.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: row shape and ids for accounts/own strategies, per-asset-class counts for the catalogue, plus the `shelf_note` and `held_elsewhere` annotations. The only meaningful omission is what `person_id` filtering does to the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `person_id` parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description arguably works against it by framing the tool as returning 'everything the client can see' without ever noting that `person_id` narrows the scope to one person, family, or entity.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List everything the client can see, as rows') and then enumerates the three row groups returned. It explicitly separates itself from `find_portfolios` (which searches the catalogue) and `open_dashboard` (which draws the same list as a card), so an agent can pick it out of a large sibling set.

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 conditions that select alternatives: use `find_portfolios` to search the provider catalogue, use `open_dashboard` to render the card, and this tool to get the raw data. It doesn't cover every nearby sibling (e.g. `describe_holdings`, `list_shares`), so it's clear guidance rather than an exhaustive when/when-not map.

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

All Analyzera toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources