Skip to main content
Glama

Santander MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_get_accounts_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns full account objects including extended creditData (additional cards, limits) per id (GET /accounts/:id). Pass account_ids as an array (1–50). { results, errors } batch shape. May include a provider_incident block when the Open Finance provider has an OPEN incident affecting a connected bank: credit limits and balances may be unreliable (e.g. a limit near 1,00) until the provider recovers. Do not present those values as real.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idsYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description warns about provider_incident blocks with unreliable credit limits/balances and instructs not to present those values as real. It also discloses the `{ results, errors }` batch shape, adding significant behavioral context not available from annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences: first gives the core purpose, second covers batch/array constraints, third provides an important edge-case warning. No redundancy; information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only batch retrieval with no output schema, the description covers the essential: full objects, batch shape, size limits, and the rare but critical provider incident behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results cautiously.

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 compensates by specifying that `account_ids` must be an array of 1–50 items and that the response has a batch shape. It also implies each string is an account ID. This adds meaningful parameter semantics 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?

Clear verb 'Returns' with specific resource 'full account objects including extended creditData' and scope 'per id'. The endpoint GET /accounts/:id reinforces the action. This distinguishes it from listing tools like openfinance_list_accounts.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed account objects by specific IDs via the `account_ids` array (1–50). It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use, but the context is clear from the batch shape and extended creditData mention.

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

All Santander MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The openfinance_* tools are mostly distinct by resource and action, but several pairs create ambiguity: openfinance_get_item_status vs openfinance_provider_status, openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, and the monolithic marketplace tool overlaps with top-level report_bug and toolkit_info. Descriptions do clarify the differences, but an agent selecting by name alone could easily choose the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The openfinance_* family follows a mostly consistent verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_balance, update_transaction_category), which is good. However, top-level tools mix bare verbs, nouns, and verb_noun forms (authenticate, connect, marketplace, show_version, toolkit_info), and openfinance_provider_status breaks the verb-first pattern. The naming is readable but not uniform across the whole set.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools sits right at the heavy boundary, though the server covers two domains: mcp.ai platform management and Open Finance data access. Some tools could be consolidated (list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, get_item_status vs provider_status), and marketplace is a monolithic super-tool that bundles many sub-capabilities. Overall the count is defensible but slightly bloated.

Completeness4/5

The Open Finance surface is thorough: accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, connection management, sync, category updates, and provider health are all covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no investment detail beyond the list and connection actions being URL-based rather than first-class tools, but there are no dead ends for typical read/aggregation workflows.

Resources