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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by detailing exactly what the returned state includes, giving the agent a clear picture of the tool's output without over-explaining. 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 a single sentence that is well-organized and packs all necessary information without filler. It lists the key components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count) in a logical order, making it highly scannable for an agent.
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 low complexity (no params, no output schema) and strong annotation coverage, the description provides sufficient detail about what the agent will receive. It covers the main aspects of the toolkit state but could optionally mention whether it requires network access or is purely local.
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 has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter details, correctly focusing on what is returned.
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 is specific and informative: 'Returns the current toolkit state' with a clear enumeration of what's included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'openfinance_list_accounts'.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool—whenever you need an overview of the toolkit's state, such as checking which MCPs are installed and their connectivity. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough from siblings to provide clear context.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: accounts, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, connections, sync, categories, provider status, and platform meta-tools are all separable. Even the two transaction tools differ (per-account list vs consolidated analysis) and the two status tools differ (connection vs provider health).
The openfinance_* prefix is consistently applied across the financial domain, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_balance, update_category). However, there are non-prefixed tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) and one outlier like openfinance_provider_status (noun instead of verb) that slightly break the pattern.
25 tools is at the upper boundary of what feels heavy for a single server, even for a comprehensive financial aggregation toolkit. The number is justified by the breadth of domains covered (accounts, credit, loans, investments, connections, platform features), but it requires careful agent selection and might be better split into separate servers.
The surface covers the full financial data lifecycle: listing and fetching details for all asset types, updating transaction categories, managing connections (list, sync, disconnect, reauth), checking provider health, and searching connectors. There are no obvious dead ends—every domain has read and appropriate write/update operations.