Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data. The bank's data will no longer be available. Returns an add_connection_url to re-connect if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
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 destructiveHint=true; description reinforces and adds that data is irrevocably removed and a reconnection URL is returned, which provides useful behavioral 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?
Three concise sentences front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant phrasing, every sentence adds value.
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 destructive action with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key outcomes (data deletion, return URL). Could mention irreversibility, but annotations already signal destructiveness.
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 single required parameter 'item' has 0% schema coverage and no description. The description does not explain what 'item' represents (likely the bank identifier), leaving the agent uninformed.
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?
Description clearly states the tool revokes consent and deletes connection data, specifying the outcome ('data will no longer be available') and a return value. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'openfinance_list_connections' by its destructive nature.
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 disconnecting a bank but does not provide explicit context on when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives.
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 openfinance_* tools target distinct resources and actions, but several overlap in purpose: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, get_credit_card_bill vs list_credit_card_bills, and multiple connection/status tools expose reconnect URLs. The long descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always immediately obvious.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent list_/get_ verb_noun pattern and share a clear prefix. The smaller platform cluster is less consistent — marketplace, connect, authenticate, show_version, toolkit_info — mixing nouns, bare verbs, and snake_case, but it is a minor deviation overall.
At 25 tools, this sits at the heavy end of acceptable. The Open Finance surface is broad enough to justify many of them, but there is redundancy (e.g. list_transactions_by_item largely wraps list_transactions plus account resolution) and a separate platform-management cluster that makes the set feel sprawling.
The Open Finance domain is well covered: connection lifecycle, accounts, balances, transactions, credit-card bills, loans, investments, categories, and provider status are all present, and data flows connect properly between tools. Minor gaps exist, such as no single-transaction fetch or dedicated prompt-management tools, but the marketplace tool fills those roles.