Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| 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?
The description goes beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations by detailing conditional return values: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This adds useful behavioral context not present in the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value. There is no redundancy or 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?
For a simple zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers key return states and URLs. Without an output schema, it carries the burden of explaining return values, and while it does not enumerate every possible field, it provides sufficient context for the common scenarios.
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 schema has no properties to annotate. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter explanations.
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 function with a specific verb and resource: "Returns connection status and URLs." It explains two distinct output scenarios, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like openfinance_list_connections, so it misses the highest bar.
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 connection status and retrieving connect URLs, and it provides context based on connection state. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., authenticate for initiating connections), nor does it provide exclusions.
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.