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, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the exact content of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key verb 'Returns' and immediately specifies the resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or extraneous information.
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?
For a simple, parameterless info tool, the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool returns, covering the key aspects an agent would need to know. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the return content sufficiently. No additional context is necessary.
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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is trivially 100% with an empty properties object. A baseline score of 4 is 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), listing the exact components returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like show_version, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as show_version, report_bug, or the openfinance_* tools. The description only states what the tool does, without any mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.
Tools are largely distinct: openfinance_* tools cover specific resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments) with clear boundaries. Some overlap exists between list_transactions and list_transactions_by_item, and between status/sync tools (get_item_status, force_sync, provider_status), but descriptions are detailed enough to guide selection.
The openfinance_* prefix provides strong consistency for the bulk of tools, with clear verb_noun patterns (list, get, update, force_sync). The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) break the pattern but are few and their names are intuitive. Overall, minor mixing of conventions but readable.
25 tools is on the higher side but appropriate for a comprehensive Open Finance and platform management server. The count includes both data access (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments) and platform utilities (authentication, connection state, marketplace). No redundant tools; each serves a clear purpose.
The surface covers the core read operations for connected banks (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments), connection management (sync, status, disconnect), and category correction. Minor gaps include no get-transaction-by-id and no update for account metadata, but these are not critical for the typical use case of a banking data aggregator.