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?
The annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context by detailing exactly what 'toolkit state' includes, giving the agent a clear expectation of the return payload. No behavioral contradictions with 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?
The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and immediately specifies the resource and key details. Every phrase adds value without redundancy.
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 tool's low complexity, zero parameters, and clear annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and output. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the detailed enumeration of return contents. There are no gaps that would confuse 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 takes zero parameters, and the schema reflects this with an empty properties object. The description appropriately focuses on the return value rather than non-existent inputs, exceeding the baseline for parameter-semantic guidance.
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 function with a specific verb ('Returns') and defines the resource as 'current toolkit state,' enumerating the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific operations or individual account details.
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 the tool is for obtaining a high-level system overview but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like openfinance_list_connections or show_version. There are no stated exclusions or usage scenarios.
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 openfinance tool targets a distinct resource/operation (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories, sync, status), and the non-openfinance tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are clearly separate. The only near-overlap is between openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, but the latter explicitly handles whole-connection consolidation and the descriptions clarify when to use each.
All openfinance tools share the `openfinance_` prefix with a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, update_, force_sync, provider_status, search_). Non-openfinance tools use simple imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) and the noun-phrase toolkit_info, all consistent in style with no mixed conventions.
25 tools is on the high side, but each serves a distinct function within the comprehensive Open Finance domain (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories, sync, status) plus general server utilities. The count is justified by the breadth of the domain, though it exceeds the typical 3-15 range.
The surface covers the full read lifecycle for financial data: listing and detail for accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, plus connection management (list, disconnect, force_sync), categories, and provider status. Missing write operations like transfers are likely out of scope, and minor gaps such as no separate 'get investment' detail are acceptable since list_investments returns comprehensive data.