Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans). Pass items as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) — one entry per connection to fetch; multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. OMIT items to list loans across ALL linked banks. Returns { results, errors } per connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so safety is clear. Description adds behavioral details: sequential queries with rate-limiting, return format `{ results, errors }`. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each essential. First states purpose and endpoint. Second explains parameter usage and behavior. No redundant or missing parts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, parameter usage, return format, and behavioral compliance (rate limits). Without output schema, return format is mentioned. Could add pagination or limits, but current level is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates: explains `items` as connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, connector_name), one per connection, and the effect of omitting the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Describes listing loan contracts per bank connection via GET /loans. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like openfinance_get_loan_detail (detail) and openfinance_list_accounts (accounts vs loans).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains when to pass `items` (specific connections) versus omit (all banks), and notes sequential fetching with rate-limit spacing. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context from siblings fills gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.