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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds context about the exact return contents, giving the agent a clear picture of the tool's output. No contradictions; it's a pure read operation with no side effects to disclose.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Returns') and then lists four specific aspects in a clear, scannable format. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition.
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 parameterless, read-only info tool, the description is fully complete: it explains what the toolkit state includes and covers the key return fields, which is sufficient given there is no output schema. It also clearly differentiates from the many sibling tools.
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, which is the baseline for a score of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't, keeping the focus on the return value.
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's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating exactly what is covered: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or the openfinance_* data tools.
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 when to use this tool (to inspect toolkit state) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. With many sibling tools, some explicit guidance or a pointer to related tools would be helpful, but its role is fairly self-evident.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.