Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans). Pass items as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) — one entry per connection to fetch; multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. OMIT items to list loans across ALL linked banks. Returns { results, errors } per connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | 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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds further value by disclosing that multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing and that the response format is '{ results, errors }' per connection. 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?
The description is two sentences long: the first states the purpose and endpoint; the second covers parameter usage and return format. Every sentence is essential, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers how to use the parameter (including selector types), the behavior difference when items is present vs. absent, and the response structure. It also mentions rate-limit handling, which adds 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?
The parameter 'items' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining that it is an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name). This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the 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 action ('lists loan contracts'), the resource ('loans'), and the endpoint ('GET /loans'). It also specifies the scope 'per bank connection', which differentiates it from sibling tools like openfinance_get_loan_detail. The verb 'list' and resource 'loans' are precise and unambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to use the 'items' parameter (to list loans for specific connections) and when to omit it (to list across all linked banks). However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.