Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content of the state but no extra behavioral traits like latency, prerequisites, or error conditions. It doesn't contradict 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state'), followed by a compact list of contents. 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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the return value. It covers the main components an agent would need to know, and since there are no params or complex behaviors, nothing critical is missing.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It fully describes the return scope relevant to the absent parameters.
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 returns 'the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle specific operations like authentication or individual account listings.
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 a read-only overview use case, clearly positioned as a top-level status report. While it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, the context of 'toolkit state' makes it clear this is the go-to for a global snapshot, distinct from per-entity 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.