MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it explains the browser login flow, token lifetime options, and that calling without args returns a link. No contradictions.
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 clear and front-loaded but slightly verbose (e.g., 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)'). Every sentence adds value, but it could be tightened without losing meaning.
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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description covers all necessary information: purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral details. Complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
Schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining its meaning: 'call with { token: '<jwt>' } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.'
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's purpose: authenticate by logging in via browser and obtaining/copying an access token, or pasting a token for session-only login. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., connect, marketplace) by being the authentication tool.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains the two authentication methods (permanent via config, session-only via token) and instructs to call with token or without args. It also notes the best practice for permanent connection.
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.
Most openfinance_ tools target distinct resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories), so the core surface is clearly separated. However, several pairs could be confused at first glance: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item (both return transactions but at different scopes), get_credit_card_bill vs list_credit_card_bills (bill detail vs list of bills), and get_account_balance vs get_accounts_detail (balance snapshot vs full account object). The detailed descriptions help, but the overlap is nontrivial.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent pattern (list_, get_, update_, search_, force_sync, provider_status, disconnect_bank), all using snake_case with a clear domain prefix. However, the general platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) have no such prefix or consistent verb_noun pattern, mixing the convention. The finance subset is strong, but the overall set isn't uniform.
At 25 tools, this is at the upper boundary of acceptable for a broad financial domain covering connections, accounts, transactions, credit cards, loans, investments, categories, and provider health. Each tool adds real capability, so it doesn't feel bloated, but it's heavier than typical and pushes the borderline between well-scoped and too many.
The surface covers the Open Finance lifecycle thoroughly: connection management (list, reconnect, force sync, disconnect, provider status), account/balance reads, transaction listing (with filters, pagination, rich detail), credit card bills (closed and open/debt), loans, investments, category management, and a connector search. Obvious gaps like a tool for creating connections are handled via widget URLs rather than an API call, so the coverage feels adequate. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool for updating a connection's credentials beyond reconnect URLs), but nothing that would block core workflows.