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?
Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers the safety profile. The description adds that it returns 'current toolkit state', but does not disclose whether connection status checks incur network latency or whether the data could be stale. No contradiction exists.
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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the main action and lists the key data components. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundant information.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the four key data categories returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This gives the agent sufficient expectation of the return structure. Combined with rich annotations, the tool is fully contextualized.
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 there is no parameter semantics to explain beyond the schema's empty object. Per rubric, a tool with 0 params receives a baseline 4.
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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections or show_version, which focus on narrower subsets of information.
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 clear context that this is the go-to tool for a high-level overview of the toolkit's state. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is unambiguous: when you need a summary of installed MCPs and their status, this is the tool. Sibling tools are more specific, so the usage context is clear.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: the openfinance_* family cleanly separates accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, sync, and provider health, while platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) cover different concerns. Even potentially similar pairs like get_item_status vs provider_status and list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item are clearly differentiated by their descriptions.
Open Finance tools follow a uniform openfinance_<verb>_<noun> snake_case pattern, and the generic tools are also readable English verbs/nouns (authenticate, connect, report_bug). The main inconsistency is that a few generic tools are bare nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info) while the rest are verbs, but the mix is predictable and never confusing.
25 tools sit at the upper boundary of what is comfortable, and the set spans two distinct domains (Open Finance data access plus MCP platform/marketplace management). Each tool does appear to earn its place, but the count is heavy enough to feel borderline rather than optimally scoped.
The Open Finance surface is thorough: list/get for accounts, transactions, bills, loans, and investments, with sync, connection health, provider status, category correction, and disconnect all covered. The platform side also covers authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/invocation, bug reporting, and version info, leaving no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.