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 destructiveHint=true. The description adds that data is deleted and unavailable, and returns a re-connect URL. This is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like whether the action is reversible or requires specific permissions beyond what annotations imply.
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?
Three sentences, each with a clear purpose. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by consequences and return value. No superfluous 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?
Given the destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description covers the main effect and return value. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., existing connection), error conditions, and does not explain the 'item' parameter, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 single parameter 'item' is not described in the schema (0% coverage). The description mentions 'a specific bank' but does not explicitly map 'item' to a bank identifier, leaving the parameter's meaning ambiguous.
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 action (revokes consent and deletes connection data) and the specific resource (bank connection). It also mentions the return of an add_connection_url for re-connection, distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for disconnecting a bank but lacks context about prerequisites or when not to use it (e.g., if data is needed later).
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 well-decomposed by resource (accounts, transactions, bills, investments, loans, connections) and by action (list, get, update, sync, disconnect), and the highly detailed descriptions make each tool's boundaries clear. A few pairs can be confused at a glance (list_accounts vs. get_account_balance, list_transactions vs. list_transactions_by_item, connect vs. toolkit_info), but the semantics are ultimately distinguishable.
The openfinance_* group follows a strong and consistent verb_noun pattern (list_transactions, get_item_status, force_sync). However, the platform-level tools are a mixed bag—authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info, show_version, report_bug—so there is no single predictable naming scheme across the whole server.
At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy/borderline boundary, though most of the surface area is genuinely needed for Open Finance reads and connection lifecycle management. Some functions overlap (list_accounts returns balances that get_account_balance also exposes), making the set feel slightly bloated and closer to a two-in-one platform (Open Finance + marketplace).
The server covers the full Open Finance discovery and connectivity lifecycle: search, reconnect, force sync, provider health, accounts, transactions, credit cards, investments, loans, and category correction. Gaps like initiating a new connection or executing financial movements are handled through connect URLs rather than direct tools, so the unavoidable dead-end is likely workable and the core read/aggregate domain is well covered.