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 | |||
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 indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true) behavior. The description adds meaningful context about what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and no caveats like response format or performance are disclosed, but for a simple read-only tool this is adequate.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the return contents without wordiness. Every phrase adds value, and the sentence structure is clear and direct.
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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description provides sufficient information about what the response will contain. It does not specify the exact response format, but for a status tool the listed fields are likely adequate. The description is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect.
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 takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the scoring rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-param tools. The description adds no need for parameter clarification.
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 clearly specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with detailed contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version and marketplace by focusing on comprehensive toolkit state.
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 a usage context (checking the toolkit's operational state) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools exist (e.g., show_version, marketplace) but no differential guidance is provided.
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.