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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read-only operation. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is behaviorally informative. 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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and lists the key outputs. Every phrase contributes meaningful information, with no wasted words or 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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description fully covers the return value by enumerating the components of the toolkit state. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what to expect without additional documentation.
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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. No additional parameter explanation is required.
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's purpose: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and specifies the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). The verb 'returns' is specific, the resource is 'toolkit state,' and the details distinguish it from sibling tools like show_version or openfinance_provider_status.
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 clear usage: to get an overview of the toolkit's current state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions, but the context is unambiguous and matches typical diagnostic tools. The lack of explicit 'use when' phrasing is offset by the clarity of purpose.
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.