Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| 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, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral detail about response states (authenticated:true with empty pending vs. returning connect_urls), which is valuable 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?
Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key behavioral details. No wasted words; the most important information is front-loaded.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main scenarios. However, it does not describe other possible states (e.g., partial connections), which might be needed for full completeness.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it already provides response semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 connection status and URLs, and provides specific scenario examples (all connected vs. missing credentials). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'openfinance_list_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?
The description implies use cases (checking connection status, obtaining connect URLs) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides context for expected responses but lacks direct comparisons to siblings.
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.