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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these flags by specifying what 'state' includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), giving the agent a realistic expectation of the returned data without needing to guess.
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 sentence that contains no filler. Every phrase adds substantive detail about the return value, making it both concise and information-dense.
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 read-only, zero-parameter informational tool, the description is complete. It names all major return categories (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, count of catalog tools), which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential return structure.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed, and the input schema is empty. There is nothing more to explain about parameter meaning.
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 the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', listing concrete components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' or 'openfinance_provider_status', which focus on narrower or different aspects.
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: it is the tool for an overview of the toolkit's current state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is self-evident and no other sibling seems to offer the same general status summary. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is not misleading.
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.