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 declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful context: consent revocation, data deletion, unavailability of data, and a return value for reconnection. 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?
Two concise sentences front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given the destructive action, single parameter, no output schema, and sufficient annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects. It could improve by documenting the parameter, but overall it is reasonably 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not clarify the 'item' parameter (e.g., bank ID or name). It only mentions 'specific bank', which leaves the parameter meaning ambiguous.
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 consent and deletes connection data for a specific bank. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like connect or list_connections by its destructive nature.
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 usage for disconnecting a bank and notes the consequence (data no longer available) and return (reconnection URL). However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like openfinance_list_connections or when not to use.
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 target distinct resource/action pairs, but openfinance_list_connections and openfinance_get_item_status overlap on connection status/reconnect URLs, and openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item can be confused. The long descriptions reduce ambiguity, but selection risk remains.
The openfinance_* block is consistently verb_noun, but the platform tools mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), and noun_info (toolkit_info). No single naming convention spans the whole set, though each subgroup is internally readable.
At 25 tools, this sits at the top of the heavy borderline range. The broad scope—MCP.AI platform management, prompt library, and Open Finance data—justifies many tools, but the set feels like a bundled suite rather than a tightly scoped single-purpose server.
The Open Finance side is well covered: accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, connections, sync, status, provider health, and category updates. The platform side has auth, toolkit info, marketplace, and feedback. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit identity fetch or payment initiation, but those seem outside the intended read/analysis domain.