Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans). Pass items as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) — one entry per connection to fetch; multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. OMIT items to list loans across ALL linked banks. Returns { results, errors } per connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No |
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 provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing and returns `{ results, errors }` per connection, which provides valuable behavioral context beyond 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no redundant information. Each sentence adds essential 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?
Given the simple parameter schema and presence of annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the core behavior and return structure. Minor gap: it doesn't detail the exact format of `results` and `errors`, but the tool's purpose is clear enough for correct invocation.
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 input schema only defines `items` as an array of strings with no further description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that `items` are connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) and what happens when omitted (lists all).
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 lists loan contracts per bank connection and specifies the endpoint (GET /loans). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts and openfinance_list_transactions.
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 explains when to pass `items` (for specific connections) and when to omit it (all linked banks). It also mentions sequential querying with rate-limit spacing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like openfinance_get_loan_detail for individual loans.
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 clearly separated by resource and action, and their detailed descriptions make most choices unambiguous. However, marketplace is a multi-action mega-tool that duplicates report_bug, and openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item have some overlap that could cause misselection.
The 19 openfinance_* tools follow a consistent and predictable 'openfinance_<verb>_<noun>' pattern. The non-openfinance tools are a mixed set (marketplace, toolkit_info, show_version, report_bug, authenticate, connect), which is readable but not fully uniform.
25 tools lands right at the heavy end of the borderline range. The Open Finance domain genuinely has many distinct resources, but the marketplace tool alone packs in many sub-actions, which makes the total tool count feel more bloated than the domain strictly requires.
The surface covers the full Open Finance lifecycle well: connections, sync/disconnect, accounts, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, categories, provider health, and platform administration. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct connect/add-bank tool beyond returning a connect_url and no get-single-transaction endpoint, but agents can work around these.