Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans). Pass items as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) — one entry per connection to fetch; multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. OMIT items to list loans across ALL linked banks. Returns { results, errors } per connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | 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 already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds sequential query behavior for multiple connections and the return structure ({ results, errors }), providing useful context beyond 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?
Three sentences, critical information front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Highly efficient.
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 list tool with one optional param and comprehensive annotations, the description covers essential usage, behavior, and return shape completely.
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%, but description explains the `items` parameter as connection selectors (item_id, connector_id, or connector_name) and the effect of omission. It adds significant meaning, though format details are slightly vague.
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 'Lists loan contracts per bank connection' with the GET endpoint, and distinguishes listing for specific connections vs all connections.
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?
It explains when to use the `items` parameter vs omitting it for all banks, and mentions sequential querying with rate-limit spacing. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list sibling tools.
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.