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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the return content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, counts). This additional context is valuable and does not contradict any 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?
A single sentence front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists specifics with no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it extremely concise and well-structured.
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, read-only info tool, the description fully captures what the tool returns and implies no hidden behavior. Even without an output schema, the enumerated items cover the essential information a user would need. The simplicity of the tool and clear annotations make this 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline per the rubric is 4. With schema coverage at 100% (trivially), there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately omits parameter details.
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 what the tool does: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates exact outputs (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts or show_version.
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 makes it clear that this is the tool to get an overview of the toolkit state, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Given the sibling context, the usage is fairly obvious, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3.
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 tools are largely distinct, especially the openfinance_* suite which follows clear resource+action patterns. A few could be confused (e.g., openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, or get_account_balance vs list_accounts) but descriptions are thorough and clarify boundaries. The non-prefixed tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) are also distinct, though 'marketplace' is quite overloaded internally.
The openfinance_* tools follow a very consistent verb_noun pattern (list, get, force_sync, update, search, provider_status). However, the platform tools are heterogeneous: authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version are verb_noun, but 'marketplace' and 'toolkit_info' are nouns. This mix is a minor inconsistency, but overall the naming is predictable across the two clear groups.
At 25 tools, this is on the heavy side (16-25 is considered heavy), but the breadth is justified by a comprehensive Open Finance API (19 tools) plus platform management (6 tools). Each openfinance_* tool maps to a specific endpoint or operation, so none feel redundant. Slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but appropriate for a full financial data adapter.
The Open Finance surface is remarkably complete: accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, categories, connection management (list, force_sync, status, provider_status, search connectors, disconnect), and even a categorization update. The platform side covers authentication, connectivity, marketplace operations (search/describe/invoke/install/subscribe), bug reporting, version, and toolkit info. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps.