MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | 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 idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false. Description adds behavioral context: returns a link if no args, or logs in with token. 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?
Description is front-loaded with purpose, then details. Slightly wordy but no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
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 no output schema, description explains return behavior (link or success). Covers authentication flow adequately for the tool's moderate complexity.
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 must explain parameter. It clarifies that `token` is optional: omit to get a login link, provide to authenticate with a JWT. Adds meaning beyond schema.
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 purpose: authenticating a user for MCP.AI IDE agents. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., openfinance_*) by focusing on authentication mechanism.
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?
Provides clear usage context: two methods (permanent via config, session via token) and when to use each. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is sufficient.
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.
Most tools are highly distinct, targeting different resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections). However, openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item both return transaction data with different scopes, which could cause misselection. Also openfinance_get_item_status vs openfinance_provider_status are distinct but similar in name.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_credit_card_bill, force_sync). Generic tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) are also clearly named and consistent within their own domain. No mixed conventions or chaotic naming.
At 25 tools, the server is on the heavier side (borderline of the 16-25 range) but each tool serves a clear purpose in the open finance domain, covering multiple resource types and auxiliary functions like marketplace and status. A slight trim could be made (e.g., merging some list/get pairs), but it's not excessive.
The server covers the full read lifecycle for accounts, transactions, bills, loans, and investments, plus connection management (list, disconnect, force sync) and category updates. Minor gaps like lack of direct deletion for financial records are acceptable since those are not typical operations. The generic tools (marketplace, auth, version) round out the toolkit.