Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data. The bank's data will no longer be available. Returns an add_connection_url to re-connect if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
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 set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds value by specifying that data 'will no longer be available' and that it returns an 'add_connection_url' for reconnection. This provides context beyond the annotation.
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 concise sentences cover the action, effect, and result. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.
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 the single parameter, the description fails to explain 'item', and there is no output schema. For a destructive action, more context about reversibility or how to obtain the parameter would be beneficial.
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 sole parameter 'item' is a string with no schema description or enum. The tool description does not clarify what 'item' represents (e.g., bank ID, name, connection ID), leaving the agent uncertain how to populate it.
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 revokes consent, deletes connection data, and makes bank data unavailable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate' by specifying the disconnect action.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when disconnection is appropriate, or contrast with other openfinance tools like 'openfinance_get_item_status' or 'openfinance_list_connections'.
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 openfinance_* tools are clearly separated by resource and action, and the long descriptions help, but several pairs can trip up an agent: authenticate/connect both deal with login/connection state, openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item sound nearly identical, and marketplace internally exposes report_bug/list_tools functions that also exist as top-level tools. This is more than a single ambiguous edge.
The 19 openfinance_* tools follow a clean get_/list_/update_ pattern and are easy to navigate, but the platform-level tools break the convention: authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info, report_bug, and show_version mix bare verbs, nouns, and noun-noun compounds. The pattern is not chaotic, but it is definitely mixed.
25 tools is on the heavy end of the borderline range and is a large working set for an agent. The openfinance tools are individually justified and support batching, but the extra platform/marketplace tools add scope and some redundancy with report_bug and toolkit_info.
For a bank-data aggregation server, the surface is complete: connector discovery, linking/reconnecting/disconnecting, account lists and details, balances, transactions, categorization, credit-card bills, investments, loans, sync status, and provider health are all covered. There are no obvious dead ends in the main workflows.