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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying conditional output states, including the presence of connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. It does not contradict 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, with the primary purpose front-loaded: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' The second sentence efficiently adds conditional detail without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.
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 has zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the two meaningful states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what the response will contain. No critical information for invoking or interpreting this simple tool is missing.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist, and the description appropriately focuses on return behavior rather than parameter details.
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 connected versus missing credentials. It is a clear verb+resource statement, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openfinance_provider_status or authenticate, which may also report connection-related 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 used to check connection status by describing output conditions (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url), but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Sibling tools exist that could serve similar purposes, yet no exclusions or comparisons are given.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, with clear descriptions differentiating them. Some overlap between openfinance_list_accounts and openfinance_get_accounts_detail, but descriptions clarify that one returns summaries and the other full details. The marketplace tool is very detailed and avoids confusion with Open Finance tools.
The Open Finance tools follow a consistent openfinance_verb_noun pattern, but other tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) do not use a prefix. This mix of conventions reduces overall consistency, though within the Open Finance subset the pattern is clear.
24 tools is a reasonable count for a platform covering authentication, marketplace, and detailed Open Finance operations. The number is slightly high but each tool has a clear purpose and none seem redundant.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of bank connections: listing accounts, transactions, credit card bills, investments, loans, force syncing, provider status, and category management. The marketplace tool also allows extending functionality. No obvious gaps for the intended financial data domain.