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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable detail about what the tool returns—installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts—which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs. 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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and result. Every phrase adds meaningful detail ('installed MCPs', 'connection status', 'accounts connected', 'catalog tools') with zero wasted words.
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 informational tool, this description is fully complete. It enumerates all categories of information returned, giving an agent enough context to decide when to call it and what to expect.
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 the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Since there is nothing to explain about parameters, the description appropriately focuses on output 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, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling action-oriented tools like authenticate or connect.
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 when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's health and capabilities. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly specific data-retrieval or auth actions, making this tool's general-purpose role evident.
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 tool targets a distinct operation or data type (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, etc.) with no ambiguity. Even closely related tools like openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item are clearly differentiated by scope and output format.
The majority of tools follow the 'openfinance_' prefix for banking operations, but utility tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break this pattern, creating an inconsistent mix. However, the convention is still readable and the utilities are clearly distinct.
25 tools is on the high side but well-justified by the breadth of Open Finance data types (accounts, transactions, credit cards, bills, loans, investments) and supporting operations (sync, status, search, updates). A few tools could potentially be merged, but overall the number is reasonable for the domain.
The tool surface covers the core Open Finance workflows: listing, reading details, syncing, updating categories, and checking provider status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to create or delete accounts/transactions), but these are external constraints. The set enables most user-facing financial queries and actions.