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?
Beyond the annotations, the description reveals that a config header provides a 'permanent, non-expiring connection' while pasting a token gives 'session-only login'. This adds valuable behavioral context about persistence and authentication state.
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 two sentences and front-loads the main purpose. Some phrasing is slightly awkward ('MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)'), but it contains no fluff and each sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: browser login, token acquisition, and the two ways to use the token. It could mention error handling or token expiration, but is sufficiently complete for the intended use.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter is a JWT obtained from the browser, how to pass it, and that calling with no args returns the login link. This adds all necessary meaning beyond the 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 authenticates the MCP server for IDE agents by logging in via browser and copying the access token. It distinguishes this from the sibling 'connect' tool by focusing specifically on authentication, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 gives explicit usage instructions: call with no args to get the link, call with a token for session-only login, or add the token to server config for permanent login. This provides clear context but does not mention when not to use this tool.
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 openfinance_* tools mostly split cleanly by resource (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections) and action (list/get/update/force_sync), so an agent can usually pick the right one. The main ambiguity is between openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, and between openfinance_get_item_status and openfinance_provider_status, but the detailed descriptions clarify those boundaries.
The dominant openfinance_<verb>_<noun> pattern is clear and all names are snake_case. However, the generic tools break the convention entirely (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item uses an awkward extra preposition, so the naming pattern is not fully uniform.
At exactly 25 tools, this is at the heavy end of the acceptable range. The openfinance family is comprehensive and each tool has a defined purpose, but several platform-level utilities (authenticate, connect, show_version, toolkit_info, report_bug) are administrative extras rather than core financial capabilities.
For a read-heavy Open Finance aggregation server, coverage is strong: connections, accounts, balances, transactions, bills, loans, investments, categories, sync, and status checks are all present. Write support is mostly limited to category updates plus connect/disconnect/sync, so agents cannot initiate payments or modify financial records, but that appears outside the stated scope.