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 |
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?
Description aligns with annotations (idempotent, non-destructive). Adds context: token can be set once, permanent vs session, and that calling without args returns a link. No contradictions.
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?
Informative but slightly verbose with informal opening. However, front-loaded with key action, and every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly.
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?
Complete for a simple 1-param tool with no output schema. Covers both usage modes (with/without token), implications for session vs permanent, and references config setup.
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 fully explains the token parameter: optional, use for pasting JWT, or omit to get login link. Adds meaning beyond schema.
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: authentication via token retrieval. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., connect, report_bug) by focusing on auth flow.
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?
Explicit guidelines: when to call with token (session login) vs without (get link), and best practice for permanent config-based auth. Differentiates from alternative approach.
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 mostly distinct, covering authentication, marketplace navigation, Open Finance data retrieval (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments), and status/connector management. Some overlap exists between openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item (both return transactions, but the latter is a consolidated summary), which could cause momentary confusion, though descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Tool names follow a clear pattern: 'openfinance_' prefix for Open Finance operations, with consistent verb_noun structure (list_accounts, get_account_balance, update_transaction_category). However, there are a few outliers like 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', and 'show_version' that don't follow the Open Finance naming convention, though they serve different purposes and are still readable.
With 25 tools, the count is slightly high but justifiable given the broad scope: the server covers Open Finance banking data (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections), marketplace operations, and system utilities. Not all tools are used in every session, but each serves a distinct purpose, and the count remains manageable due to clear grouping.
The tool surface covers the core Open Finance lifecycle well: list and get accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, plus sync, reconnect, and category updates. It also includes connector search and provider status. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for updating or deleting a transaction category rule, and no direct CRUD for connections (only list and disconnect), but these are acceptable gaps.