Skip to main content
Glama

openfinance_get_item_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the current status of a bank connection (UPDATED, UPDATING, LOGIN_ERROR, etc.), its executionStatus, connector metadata, and a reconnect_url that reopens the widget in UPDATE mode for that connection (re-authenticate / enter MFA token in place, without disconnecting and without consuming a connection slot). Omit item to get the status of ALL linked banks at once (returns { count, items }); pass item for a single bank.

Bulk support: accepts item_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemNo
item_idNo
item_idsNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable context: the reconnect_url reopens the widget in UPDATE mode without disconnecting or consuming a connection slot, and bulk returns a structured object. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and return behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise, using two sentences to cover the primary behavior, single vs. all modes, and bulk support. The second sentence is dense but not wasteful. No unnecessary words, though the parenthetical in the first sentence is lengthy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the main use cases and return behavior, but lacks clarification for `item_id` and doesn't specify the response format for single-item queries or potential error cases. Given the absence of an output schema and low parameter schema coverage, these omissions leave room for ambiguity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains `item` and `item_ids`, but completely omits `item_id` from the schema, leaving ambiguity between `item` and `item_id`. This is a significant gap that could cause incorrect invocation.

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 returns the current status of a bank connection, including specific status values, executionStatus, connector metadata, and a reconnect_url. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on status and the reconnect functionality, and explicitly differentiates between single-item and all-items modes.

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 provides clear guidance on when to omit vs. pass `item` for single vs. all connections, and mentions batch support via item_ids. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternative tools, but the usage modes are well explained.

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
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.