Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data. The bank's data will no longer be available. Returns an add_connection_url to re-connect if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true. The description adds context: 'deletes the connection data' and 'data will no longer be available', plus mentions the returned add_connection_url. This goes beyond annotations with useful behavioral details.
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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action, followed by consequence and return value. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers action, effect, and return. However, it could note reversibility or prerequisites. Still adequate.
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 schema has one parameter 'item' with no description (0% coverage). The description says 'for a specific bank', giving minimal semantics. It doesn't clarify format, source, or examples. Adequate but could be improved.
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 revokes consent and deletes connection data, with the specific verb 'revokes' and resource 'Open Finance consent for a specific bank'. It also mentions the return of a reconnection URL, distinguishing it from siblings that list or sync data.
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 usage when needing to disconnect a bank, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusion criteria or comparison with sibling tools like openfinance_get_item_status or openfinance_list_connections.
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, but several have overlapping boundaries: openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, openfinance_get_item_status vs openfinance_provider_status, and openfinance_list_accounts carrying balance vs openfinance_get_account_balance. The platform-level tools also blur somewhat: marketplace, toolkit_info, and connect all touch installed or available services.
The openfinance_* group follows a consistent list/get/update verb pattern in snake_case, but platform-level tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info break that convention. The set is readable, but it is split between two clearly different naming styles.
At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end, and several are platform/MCP-management helpers rather than core banking capabilities. The count is not absurd for a broad Open Finance + marketplace adapter, but it feels more cluttered than a focused financial data toolset should be.
The Open Finance surface is thorough: accounts, transactions, balances, credit card bills, loans, investments, connection lifecycle, sync, provider status, and category correction are all covered. The main gaps are the absence of a direct connect/create action (only URLs are returned) and no write operations beyond category updates, but for a read-centric financial data adapter this is close to complete.