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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the composition of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which is meaningful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and the complete return payload. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation 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 tool's simple nature (no params, no output schema), the description sufficiently lists the key pieces of information returned. It does not describe the exact structure or format of the returned data, but for a status/summary tool this is adequate and matches the tool's low complexity.
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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties object). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on return content rather than parameter details. Nothing is missing.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like openfinance_* data tools and show_version.
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 makes the tool's purpose obvious, so when to use it is implied: whenever one needs an overview of the toolkit's setup and connectivity. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so usage guidance is adequate but not explicit.
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.