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 important behavioral context: what gets deleted (connection data), the consequence (data no longer available), and a re-connection URL. This goes beyond the bare annotation and accurately describes the irreversible nature.
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, front-loaded with the action and consequence, followed by the return value. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and return value. It lacks guidance on where to find 'item' (e.g., from list_connections) but is otherwise sufficiently complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description's mention of 'a specific bank' is the only hint that 'item' refers to a bank identifier. It doesn't specify the format, source, or how to obtain this value, leaving the parameter somewhat underspecified.
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 action: 'Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data.' It uses a specific verb ('revokes'/'deletes') and resource ('bank connection'), distinguishing it from sibling read/sync tools.
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 provides clear context: use when you need to disconnect a specific bank and delete its data. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'specific bank' phrasing and connection-deletion purpose make the intended use clear.
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 openfinance_* family is largely well-differentiated by resource and action, but the monolithic `marketplace` tool bundles search, invoke, install, billing, and prompt-library actions into one name, creating ambiguity about where platform capabilities live. Additionally, `openfinance_list_transactions` and `openfinance_list_transactions_by_item` both return transaction data and could be misselected despite their different aggregation intent.
The openfinance_* tools consistently follow a clear verb_noun pattern, which gives the majority of the surface a predictable shape. But the generic platform tools mix bare verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), nouns (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), and verb_noun names (`report_bug`, `show_version`), so the server has two naming dialects rather than one uniform convention.
At 25 tools, this sits right at the top of the heavy range, and the server genuinely spans two broad domains: MCP platform administration and Open Finance banking data. The count is defensible given the breadth, but it is not a lean or easily navigable surface for an agent.
The Open Finance side is quite complete, covering connections, accounts, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, categories, provider status, sync, and disconnection. The platform side covers authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, and versioning, though some marketplace sub-actions are packed into one tool and bank connection itself is only reachable through URLs returned by other tools.