toolkit_info
Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds beyond this by specifying what data is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), providing useful context on the tool's output composition.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource, then lists the specific return components without any filler 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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema info tool, the description fully covers return value composition. It lists all major components of the toolkit state, making the tool's behavior understandable without additional schema or annotation details.
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 schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4; since there are no parameters to explain, the description appropriately does not include 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 the tool returns the current toolkit state with specific components: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This uses a specific verb (Returns) and resource (current toolkit state), distinguishing it from siblings like show_version or connect.
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 usage for checking toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios, so it relies on the reader to infer its role among sibling tools.
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.
Each openfinance_* tool targets a distinct resource (account, transaction, bill, loan, investment) with a clear action (get/list/update/force_sync). The administrative tools (connect, authenticate, report_bug) are clearly separate. No two tools appear to perform the same function.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_account_balance, list_transactions, update_transaction_category). Minor deviations like openfinance_provider_status (lacks a verb) and openfinance_force_sync (verb phrase) slightly break the pattern, but the overall convention is predictable.
25 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for a comprehensive Open Finance server covering accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, and administration. Each tool has a distinct purpose and none feel redundant.
The tool surface is complete for the domain: it covers connection management (connect/disconnect/force sync/status), account and transaction queries, credit card bills, loans, investments, and transaction categorization, plus admin utilities. No obvious gaps that would block typical workflows.