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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds value by explaining that connection data is deleted and data becomes unavailable, and it mentions the return of an 'add_connection_url' for reconnection. This provides behavioral context beyond the 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 concise (two sentences, 25 words) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds essential information without 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, destructive action, no output schema), the description covers the main effect and return value. However, it lacks explanation of the required 'item' parameter and any prerequisites (e.g., must be connected). The presence of sibling tools like 'openfinance_list_connections' suggests a context, but the description does not leverage that.
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 one required parameter 'item' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'item' represents (e.g., a bank identifier or connection ID), only implying 'a specific bank'. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying the parameter, but it fails to do so.
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 explicitly states the tool revokes Open Finance consent, deletes connection data, and makes bank data unavailable. It uses specific verbs ('revokes', 'deletes') and clearly identifies the resource ('a specific bank'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'openfinance_list_connections' or 'openfinance_get_item_status', which do not perform disconnection.
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 the tool should be used when wanting to disconnect a bank and delete its data, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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.