Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans). Pass items as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) — one entry per connection to fetch; multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. OMIT items to list loans across ALL linked banks. Returns { results, errors } per connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | 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?
Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: sequential querying with rate-limit spacing, and response format {results, errors} per connection. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, which are consistent.
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?
Two efficient sentences: first states purpose and HTTP method, second details parameter usage and default behavior. No 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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, behavior, and response format. It could mention that for a single loan, use the sibling openfinance_get_loan_detail, but completeness is high.
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 has 0% description coverage for the 'items' parameter. The description fully compensates by explaining that items are connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name), one per connection, with explicit omission behavior.
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?
Description clearly states this tool lists loan contracts per bank connection, which is distinguishing from sibling list tools like openfinance_list_accounts. The verb 'list' and resource 'loans' are specific.
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 explains when to pass 'items' (for specific connections) and when to omit (for all linked banks), providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like openfinance_get_loan_detail, but the guidance is sufficient.
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.