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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific informational payload (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which is useful context beyond the annotations and gives a clear picture of the returned data.
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, front-loaded with the main verb and object ('Returns the current toolkit state'), and efficiently lists the key details. No wasted words.
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 informational tool, the description sufficiently covers what is returned and the context. There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the main result components, making it complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params receive a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.
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' and enumerates specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections or openfinance_provider_status, which focus on narrower aspects.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when an overall summary of the toolkit is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined, and the high-level nature is evident from the listed contents.
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.