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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds context about what data is returned but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side-effect warnings. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool, but not particularly rich.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates the key output categories without redundancy. Every clause adds value, and there is no wasted wording.
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, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the toolkit state includes and implies the tool is for informational purposes. No output schema exists, but the enumerated return categories cover the necessary context.
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 accepts zero parameters, and the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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') and clearly defines the resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report 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 implies the tool is for checking toolkit status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides clear context about the output, but no usage guidance or comparisons to other tools, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.
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.