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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what the returned state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts per MCP, catalog tool counts), going beyond a generic 'returns state' statement. No 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, front-loaded sentence beginning with 'Returns' and uses a colon to enumerate the delivered information. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation details.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete enough: it fully specifies the nature of the returned toolkit state. It does not explain return format or caching, but these are not critical given the simplicity and the presence of read-only/idempotent annotations. The content covers what an agent needs to know to choose and use this tool.
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, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information since there are none. It correctly focuses on return value semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections or show_version, which are provider-specific or version-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 implies this is a top-level overview tool for checking toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use this to get a high-level view before calling specific connector tools'). No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.