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 | |||
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?
With annotations already marking the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds meaningful context about what is actually returned: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It does not surface caveats like potential staleness or auth requirements, but the annotations cover the safety profile and the description explains the informational nature.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and lists the key elements in a logical order. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, this provides complete and actionable information for an agent.
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 baseline is 4. There is no parameter information needed, and the description focuses entirely on the return value, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual financial accounts or connections.
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 implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's configured MCPs, their connection status, and exposed catalog tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the detailed return value provides clear context for when it is appropriate.
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 tools have clearly distinct purposes within the openfinance_* namespace, but some close pairs exist: get_account_balance vs get_accounts_detail, list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, and get_item_status vs provider_status vs force_sync all require careful reading. The detailed descriptions resolve most ambiguity, but selection is not always instant.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_account_balance, update_transaction_category, force_sync). However, the generic platform tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info break the pattern, and provider_status is a noun phrase rather than verb_noun.
At exactly 25 tools, this sits at the heavy boundary. The Open Finance domain justifies many of them, but the set feels bloated because marketplace alone bundles a large number of sub-operations, and several platform utilities could arguably be consolidated.
The Open Finance surface is quite complete: connections, accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, investments, loans, categories, sync, status, and provider health are all covered. Minor gaps exist around direct connection creation (delegated to URLs) and single-item transaction detail, but agents can work around them.