MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by describing token submission as idempotent. It explains the two modes (permanent vs session) and that calling without args returns a link, adding context beyond 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?
Description is slightly verbose but well-structured: starts with purpose, then best practice, then alternative. Every sentence adds value, but could be tightened.
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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all needed behavior: how to authenticate permanently or session-only, and how to get the login link.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the 'token' parameter usage: pass a JWT after user pastes, or omit to get login link. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.
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 is for authentication, explaining how to log in and retrieve an access token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., connect, openfinance_*) by focusing solely on authentication.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: best to add token to server config, or paste for session, or call with no args to get the link. Clearly separates two use cases with clear when-to-use instructions.
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 cleanly separated by resource and action, and tricky pairs like list_accounts vs get_account_balance and list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item are explicitly cross-referenced in descriptions. However, marketplace bundles a large set of sub-actions, and connect/toolkit_info partially overlap on reporting connection state, so a couple of boundaries are fuzzy.
The openfinance_* tools consistently follow a verb_resource pattern with snake_case, which is highly predictable. The generic platform tools mostly fit the same style, but marketplace and toolkit_info are noun-only names, and openfinance_provider_status also breaks the verb pattern, so it is not perfectly uniform.
At 25 tools, this server falls at the heavy end of the borderline range. The many openfinance_* list/get tools are individually justified for the financial domain, but adding platform tools like marketplace, connect, toolkit_info, and show_version makes the overall surface larger than a minimal server needs.
The financial surface is remarkably thorough: accounts, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, categories, connection lifecycle, sync, and provider health are all covered with list/get and update paths where applicable. The platform side also covers auth, connection status, marketplace discovery/execution, versioning, and bug reporting, leaving no obvious dead ends.