MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | 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 show idempotentHint=true, but description adds context: if called with no args, returns a login link; if called with token, it processes authentication. It also explains the permanent non-expiring connection via config file, which is beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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 informative but slightly long. However, every sentence adds value: it explains context, best practice, and usage. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Could be slightly trimmed but is efficient overall.
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?
No output schema exists, but description explains the expected behavior: returns a link when called without token, or processes login with token. For an authentication tool, this is complete and covers the essential scenarios.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully compensates by explaining that 'token' should be a JWT string and how it is used (for session-only login). It adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.
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 is for authenticating to MCP.AI for IDE agents. It specifies the two modes: permanent config-based or session-only, and explains what each does. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing solely on authentication.
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?
Explicit guidance is provided on when to use each mode: best to add token to config for permanent connection, or paste token for session-only. It tells the agent to call with no args to get the link, or with token to log in. Siblings are diverse, so no conflict.
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 Open Finance tools have clear list/get pairs for each resource (accounts, transactions, loans, investments, bills), but the marketplace tool is a monolith combining search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, and prompt library actions, causing ambiguity about which action to use. Additionally, openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item overlap in purpose but are distinguished by scope.
The openfinance_* group follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (list, get, update, force_sync, etc.), but the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, show_version, report_bug, toolkit_info) use mixed bare verbs and nouns, creating two distinct conventions. Names like openfinance_list_transactions_by_item are longer but still consistent within the group.
25 tools is at the heavy end, but the Open Finance domain alone justifies 17 tools covering distinct resources and operations. The platform tools add 8 more, though the marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions into one, inflating the effective count. The number is borderline but not excessive given the breadth of banking functionality.
The Open Finance surface is comprehensive with list/get for every major resource, plus support for sync, status, search, categories, and category updates. The platform tools cover authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version, and toolkit state. No obvious gaps or dead ends in the workflow.