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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing, and that the return shape is `{ results, errors }` per connection. This gives the agent insight into performance and error handling without contradicting 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 three sentences with no redundant content. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately covers parameter usage, behavior for multiple connections, and return format in a structured way. 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It provides the endpoint, parameter semantics, behavior for both modes, and return format. Given the annotations and sibling context, there are no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema has zero description coverage (0%) for the `items` parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It fully explains that `items` is an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name), how it is used (one entry per connection), and the behavior when omitted. This compensates completely for the schema's lack of detail.
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 lists loan contracts per bank connection via the endpoint GET /loans. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openfinance_get_loan_detail by focusing on listing rather than individual details, and specifies the scope (per connection or all banks).
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 explicit guidance on when to pass `items` (to specify connections) and when to omit it (to list across all linked banks). It also explains that multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like openfinance_get_loan_detail, though the purpose and sibling context imply the distinction.
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.