Skip to main content
Glama

EQI MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_search_bank_connectors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Searches the available bank connectors by name (pass keywords[], e.g. ['nubank','btg']) and returns, per match: the connector id, whether it's Open Finance or API (access), PF/PJ (audience), the user's already-linked connections (and accounts when include_accounts=true), and a ready connect_url with the bank pre-selected. Some non-Open-Finance credential connectors carry a caveat warning that they don't auto-update (needs periodic manual reconnection) — surface it so the user can prefer the institution's Open Finance connector for automation. Honors the user's plan (a PF plan hides PJ banks; a PJ plan covers BOTH — PF and PJ banks connect and count under the same plan). Call this BEFORE connecting to hand the user a one-click link to the right bank. keywords[] is REQUIRED — without it returns a hint (never dumps the whole catalog).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordsNo
include_accountsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. Added
  10. Removed
  11. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral details such as caveat warnings for non-Open-Finance connectors and plan-dependent filtering, enhancing transparency 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and informative but somewhat lengthy at over 200 words. It front-loads the main purpose but could be more concise by splitting into paragraphs or reducing redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers return fields, plan behavior, caveats, and usage order. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though an explicit output schema would further help.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description carries full burden. It explains that keywords[] takes names like ['nubank','btg'] and is required, and include_accounts returns associated accounts. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches bank connectors by name and returns specific details like connector id, access type, audience, linked connections, and connect_url. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by being a prerequisite search step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description instructs to call this BEFORE connecting and explains that keywords[] is required (effectively a required parameter). It also discusses plan behavior (PF vs PJ) and hints at preferring Open Finance connectors due to caveats. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All EQI MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources