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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the exact information returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict the output.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource, then lists the key components. Every part earns its place with no redundant language.
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 no-parameter info tool with no output schema, the description clearly enumerates the types of data returned (MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which gives the agent a solid expectation. It could add more detail about the return format or edge cases, but the current level is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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 schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and with no params to clarify, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the current toolkit state'. It enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions or retrieve domain-specific data.
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 this is the go-to tool for a system-level overview of MCPs and connections, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list shows other tools are specialized for finance operations, making the usage context clear enough.
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.