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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing what the returned state includes (MCP statuses, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions or hidden side effects are disclosed.
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 the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific elements. No filler or redundant information is present.
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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool does and what information it returns. The enumerated return contents make the tool's behavior predictable and complete for this simple scope.
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 schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately avoids adding any parameter-related detail that is not needed.
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 a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly specifies the resource 'current toolkit state' while enumerating exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or marketplace, which serve different purposes.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The description implies usage for checking overall status but does not explicitly state a preferred context or mention when a different tool would be more appropriate.
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.