Skip to main content
Glama

openfinance_search_bank_connectors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Searches the available bank connectors by name (pass keywords[], e.g. ['nubank','btg']) and returns, per match: the connector id, whether it's Open Finance or API (access), PF/PJ (audience), the user's already-linked connections (and accounts when include_accounts=true), and a ready connect_url with the bank pre-selected. Some non-Open-Finance credential connectors carry a caveat warning that they don't auto-update (needs periodic manual reconnection) — surface it so the user can prefer the institution's Open Finance connector for automation. Honors the user's plan (a PF plan hides PJ banks; a PJ plan covers BOTH — PF and PJ banks connect and count under the same plan). Call this BEFORE connecting to hand the user a one-click link to the right bank. keywords[] is REQUIRED — without it returns a hint (never dumps the whole catalog).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordsNo
include_accountsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. Added
  10. Removed
  11. Added
  12. Removed
  13. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds significant context: caveat warnings for non-Open-Finance connectors, plan-based filtering, and that without keywords it returns a hint instead of dumping the catalog. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph that could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). While front-loaded with the main action, it buries important details like the plan behavior and caveat. Slightly verbose for the information conveyed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description lists return fields and covers plan behavior, caveats, and required keywords. Minor omissions: no mention of pagination, limit, or error handling, but the essential behavior is well captured.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: keywords (array of strings, required, used to search by name) and include_accounts (boolean to include accounts). It also clarifies the requirement for keywords beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches bank connectors by name, lists the specific fields returned (connector id, access, audience, etc.), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it should be called before connecting to get a one-click link. No ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to call this before connecting, notes that keywords[] is required (otherwise returns a hint), and explains plan behavior for PF vs PJ. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other search or list tools like openfinance_list_connections.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The openfinance_* tools are mostly separated by resource (accounts, bills, loans, investments, connections), and the meta tools are distinct. The main ambiguities are openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, and openfinance_get_credit_card_bill vs openfinance_list_credit_card_bills, though their descriptions do clarify different intents.

Naming Consistency3/5

The openfinance_* family follows a consistent verb_noun pattern, and the generic platform tools use bare lowercase names like connect, authenticate, and marketplace. The mixed prefixes and the occasional singular/plural variation (get_credit_card_bill vs list_credit_card_bills) make the overall namespace readable but not fully uniform.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the heavy end and combines two distinct areas: platform/meta tooling and a deep Open Finance adapter. Most openfinance tools are justifed by real endpoints, but the count feels bulky for an agent to browse, and the marketplace tool packs an unusually large number of capabilities into a single entry.

Completeness4/5

The Open Finance surface is unusually complete: accounts, balances, transactions, credit-card bills, loans, investments, connection status, force sync, provider status, category correction, and disconnect are all present. The platform side is also broad via marketplace and toolkit_info, with only minor granularity gaps such as no dedicated get-single-transaction tool or separate marketplace sub-tools.