Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans). Pass items as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) — one entry per connection to fetch; multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. OMIT items to list loans across ALL linked banks. Returns { results, errors } per connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | 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?
The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: 'multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing' and 'Returns `{ results, errors }` per connection'. These traits (rate limiting, error handling, sequential processing) are not disclosed by the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), providing valuable operational context.
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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains parameter usage and return format. No wasted words; every sentence adds essential information.
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?
Given the tool has only 1 optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations already cover safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It explains the two invocation modes (specific connections vs. all), the return shape, and rate-limit behavior. There is no missing information needed for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema only defines `items` as an array of strings. The description compensates fully by explaining that `items` is an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name), one per connection, and describes the behavior when omitted. This gives complete meaning to the parameter beyond the raw 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's purpose: 'Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans)'. This is a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('loan contracts per bank connection'), and it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts or openfinance_list_transactions.
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 explicit usage context: 'Pass `items` as an array of connection selectors' and 'OMIT `items` to list loans across ALL linked banks'. This tells the agent exactly how to invoke the tool for specific connections vs. all connections. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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.