MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | 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?
Describes session vs permanent behavior and idempotency (idempotentHint=true supported). No contradictions with annotations, though could clarify if repeated calls overwrite session.
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?
Informative but slightly verbose; front-loaded with purpose, but could be more concise while retaining key details.
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?
No output schema exists, so description should detail return values. It mentions 'get the link' for no-arg call but not what happens with token arg (e.g., success message). Incomplete.
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 has 0% coverage, but description fully explains the token parameter as a JWT string and its purpose, adding essential meaning beyond schema.
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's purpose: authentication via browser login or token paste. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only auth tool.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on two modes of use (with and without token) and an alternative (config header for permanent connection), helping the agent choose correctly.
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_* tools are mostly distinct resource/action pairs, but several boundaries blur: openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item vs openfinance_get_credit_card_bill(include_transactions) all return transaction data, and openfinance_get_item_status / openfinance_provider_status / openfinance_list_connections all concern connection health. The monolithic marketplace tool also bundles search/describe/invoke/install/prompt-library operations, adding further ambiguity.
The 19 openfinance_* tools follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_item_status, update_transaction_category), but the six platform tools break it with bare verbs (authenticate, connect) and noun-style names (marketplace, toolkit_info). The split is namespace-based and still readable, so it is only a minor inconsistency.
25 tools is on the heavy side, but the server spans two domains: an Open Finance banking surface (accounts, bills, loans, investments, connections) and a marketplace/platform layer (auth, search, prompts, bug reporting). Many openfinance tools are necessary for that breadth, though the count is high enough to feel bloated.
The Open Finance surface is nearly complete: connections can be searched, listed, disconnected, force-synced, and health-checked; accounts, transactions, bills, loans, and investments all have read/detail paths; transaction categories can be updated. Minor gaps exist, such as no granular marketplace tools outside the monolithic marketplace tool and no single-transaction detail endpoint, but core workflows do not dead-end.