Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data. The bank's data will no longer be available. Returns an add_connection_url to re-connect if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
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 already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description confirms that data will be deleted and no longer available. It adds value by mentioning the return of an add_connection_url for reconnection. No contradictions 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?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the action, consequence, and return value. No wasted words.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and result. It could be improved by clarifying the 'item' parameter, but overall it is adequately complete for selection and basic usage.
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 input schema has one required parameter 'item' (string) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'item' refers to (e.g., bank ID or connection identifier). With no parameter details in the schema and no elaboration in the description, the agent lacks semantic guidance for this 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?
The description clearly states it revokes consent and deletes connection data for a specific bank. It specifies the outcome (data no longer available) and provides additional context (returns reconnection URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or openfinance_force_sync.
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 usage when you want to disconnect a bank and delete its data. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many finance-related sibling tools. No exclusions or context are given.
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.