Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these by specifying what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and object. No filler, every phrase adds specificity about the returned state.
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?
Given the tool's simple nature, absent output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what kind of state is returned and what components are included. No obvious gaps.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain. The description focuses on output semantics instead, which is entirely appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Returns' and a concrete resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or openfinance_list_accounts.
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?
The description implies clear usage: when a summary of toolkit state is needed, use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.
The openfinance_* family is mostly well-differentiated by resource type, but several tools overlap in purpose: openfinance_get_account_balance, openfinance_get_accounts_detail, and openfinance_list_accounts all return account/balance data, and openfinance_list_transactions versus openfinance_list_transactions_by_item have similar scopes. The marketplace tool also bundles many sub-actions (search, invoke, install, subscribe, report_bug, prompt library) into one tool, and duplicates the standalone report_bug tool. Detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily misselect among the account and transaction variants.
Naming is largely consistent: the finance tools follow a clear openfinance_verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_account_balance, force_sync, update_transaction_category). There are minor singular/plural inconsistencies (get_account_balance vs get_accounts_detail, get_credit_card_bill vs list_credit_card_bills) and generic platform verbs like authenticate/connect/marketplace that follow a different style, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
25 tools is at the upper boundary of what feels manageable for a server covering platform management, marketplace operations, and a broad Open Finance data domain. The count is defensible given the many resource types (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections), but it is heavy and the marketplace tool alone packs a dozen sub-capabilities into one entry, making the surface feel larger than 25 discrete tools.
The Open Finance surface is quite complete: connection lifecycle (list, connect, disconnect, force sync, status, provider status), account and balance reads, transactions with categorization support, credit card bills with payment status, loans, investments, and investment transactions. Platform concerns like authentication, versioning, toolkit state, marketplace search/install/invoke, and bug reporting are also covered, leaving no obvious dead ends for the server's stated purpose.