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 |
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?
While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, the description adds important context: what gets deleted (connection data), the consequence (bank's data no longer available), and the return of an add_connection_url for re-connection. This goes beyond the structured 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary filler. Every sentence adds relevant information about the action, effect, and return 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?
The description covers the action and consequence but omits critical information about the sole parameter. Without knowing what 'item' refers to, the tool cannot be correctly invoked. Even for a simple tool, this is a major gap that undermines 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 schema has one required parameter 'item' with no description, and the description provides zero explanation of what 'item' is (e.g., bank ID, connection ID). With 0% schema coverage, the description completely fails to clarify the parameter, making it impossible for an agent to know what value to supply.
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: 'Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data.' It specifies the resource (bank connection) and the effect (data no longer available), distinguishing it from sibling tools like listing or syncing.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used for permanently removing a bank connection or mention any alternatives. The mention of re-connect is a consequence, not usage guidance.
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.