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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations, specifying the two possible return states (all connected vs missing credentials). No contradictions.
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 clear, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence provides value, no redundancy.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the major use cases adequately. It explains what to expect in both connection states.
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?
No parameters exist. Schema description coverage is 100% (default). Per guidelines, 0 params yields baseline 4. No additional param info 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 connection status and URLs, with specific behaviors for fully connected vs missing credentials. It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate and openfinance tools by focusing on the overall connection state.
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 implicitly guides use by explaining when to expect authenticated:true vs connect URLs. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, but the context is clear given sibling tools like authenticate for different purposes.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially with the openfinance_ prefix grouping banking operations. However, pairs like openfinance_list_accounts vs openfinance_get_accounts_detail and openfinance_get_credit_card_bill vs openfinance_list_credit_card_bills could cause minor confusion, though descriptions help.
Tools consistently use snake_case with a clear verb_noun pattern. Open finance tools all start with openfinance_, and utility tools use simple verbs like authenticate, connect, report_bug. No mixing of conventions.
At 24 tools, the count is on the higher side of the borderline range. The server combines platform management (6 tools) and banking operations (18 tools), which justifies the number, but it feels slightly heavy for a single server.
The tool surface covers all major banking operations (accounts, transactions, credit cards, investments, loans) and includes essential maintenance tools (sync, status, disconnect, search connectors). Platform management is also comprehensive with authentication, marketplace operations, and diagnostics.