Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data. The bank's data will no longer be available. Returns an add_connection_url to re-connect if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
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 destructiveHint=true, and the description consistently explains the deletion of connection data and the unavailability of bank data. It adds value by detailing the return of a reconnect URL. However, it could further clarify side effects (e.g., impact on transaction history). No contradictions 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action and then provides the return behavior briefly. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given no output schema and a single parameter with no documentation, the description covers the core action and return value, but omits details like the response structure (e.g., confirmation, error handling) and prerequisites (e.g., active consent). For a destructive tool, more context about post-action state would be beneficial.
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 sole parameter 'item' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description only implies it identifies a specific bank, but does not specify the format, expected values, or how to obtain it (e.g., from list_connections). This leaves the agent guessing about the parameter's exact semantics.
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 uses strong verbs ('revokes', 'deletes') and clearly identifies the resource (Open Finance consent for a specific bank). It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_force_sync by specifying the destructive action and the return of a reconnect URL.
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 usage when you want to disconnect a bank and delete its data, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. The mention of returning an add_connection_url hints at reversibility, but no direct guidance is provided.
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.
Most openfinance_* tools target clearly distinct resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories). Minor overlap exists—list_accounts returns balances and list_transactions_by_item consolidates what list_transactions provides—but the detailed descriptions distinguish them adequately.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, update_*, force_sync, search_*) with one slight deviation: openfinance_provider_status omits a verb. The non-openfinance platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) break the prefix pattern, creating two naming conventions within the same server.
25 tools sits at the upper boundary of acceptable for a comprehensive Open Finance banking adapter, covering accounts, transactions, credit cards, loans, investments, and connection management. However, including meta-platform tools like marketplace and toolkit_info inflates the count and makes the set feel heavier than a pure banking tool surface.
The tool surface covers the core Open Finance lifecycle well: list/get accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, connection management, category correction, and provider status. Gaps include no direct new-bank connection tool (only URLs) and no investment detail endpoint beyond transactions, but agents can work around these.