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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what will be returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists the key information it returns. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview of the return contents, covering the main aspects one would need. However, it omits minor details such as exact field names or error behavior, which for a simple info tool is acceptable but not fully exhaustive.
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 takes zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. Per baseline for 0 params, score is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist.
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 details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools such as openfinance_list_accounts or connect, which focus on specific actions or data.
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 overall toolkit status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., for detailed account info use openfinance_list_accounts). It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative references.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially within the openfinance_* family where each targets a different resource or action. A few minor overlaps exist—connect vs toolkit_info both report connection state, and marketplace internally includes report_bug while a top-level report_bug also exists—but these are unlikely to cause serious misselection.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent snake_case prefix with mostly verb_noun patterns like list_accounts, get_item_status, and force_sync. The general tools are also snake_case but mix verbs (connect, authenticate) with nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and openfinance_provider_status breaks the verb_noun pattern slightly.
25 tools is at the upper boundary of a heavy surface, but the Open Finance domain genuinely spans connections, accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, categories, and provider health. It feels dense rather than bloated, though a few general utilities like show_version and report_bug could arguably be consolidated.
The Open Finance surface is well covered: connection management, account/balance/transaction retrieval, credit card bills, loans, investments, category correction, force sync, and provider status are all present. Minor gaps exist—such as no direct investment position detail endpoint beyond the portfolio list, and payments/initiation are out of scope—but agents can accomplish the core read-only financial workflows without dead ends.