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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing what the return includes (installed MCPs, connection status, account links, catalog tool counts) but does not reveal additional behavioral traits like pagination, caching, or authentication requirements. This matches the baseline for annotation-backed tools.
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 begins with the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the exact contents. Every phrase adds value, with no redundant or vague language.
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 no-parameter, read-only info tool without an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the essential return categories (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) and gives the agent a clear expectation of what the tool provides. There is no need for additional context about pagination or errors given the tool's simplicity.
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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific information because there are none, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No further semantic clarification is needed.
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 returns the current toolkit state, enumerating specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). The verb 'returns' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on finance operations or authentication.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool — to get an overview of the toolkit state, including MCP connectivity and account status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique focus on 'toolkit state' makes the usage scenario apparent without needing to reference 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.