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 established. The description adds valuable context about what the returned state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond the annotations to clarify the tool's informational scope.
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 clearly states the purpose and then enumerates the key components of the return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrases or fluff.
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, read-only tool with no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent exactly what information will be returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), leaving no significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.
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 accepts zero parameters, and the empty schema provides no parameters to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to explain; the description focuses on the return value rather than parameters.
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 verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource 'current toolkit state' with concrete details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on financial operations or version details.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a state-checking purpose but does not state when to invoke it (e.g., before other operations) or explain why it should be preferred over similar informational tools like show_version or report_bug.
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 are clearly distinct, especially within the openfinance_* group, with detailed descriptions covering specific resources and actions. Minor overlap exists between list_transactions and list_transactions_by_item, and between get_credit_card_bill and list_credit_card_bills, but the descriptions clearly delineate their use cases (per-account vs whole-connection, detail vs summary).
The openfinance_* tools consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_accounts, get_item_status, update_transaction_category), with the exception of openfinance_provider_status which uses a noun phrase. Non-openfinance tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and report_bug are less uniform but still readable. Overall, the convention is mostly consistent.
At 25 tools, this is on the higher end but justified by the comprehensive Open Finance domain covering accounts, transactions, credit cards, loans, investments, connections, categories, and provider status. Each tool serves a specific operation, and the marketplace and platform utilities round out the surface. It's slightly heavy but not excessive.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for Open Finance data: listing and detailing accounts, retrieving balances, managing transactions (including categorization), handling credit card bills (list and detail with transactions), loans, investments, and connection health (sync, status, disconnect, search). Also includes authentication, marketplace, and utility tools. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.