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 indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that bank data will no longer be available and that a re-connection URL is returned. This provides useful context beyond the annotation without contradiction.
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, front-loads the primary action, and efficiently covers consequence and return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
The tool has a single parameter but its meaning is undocumented, creating a gap. The description adequately covers the main action and outcome but fails to clarify the parameter's purpose. Given the complexity, it is minimally adequate but incomplete.
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 schema has a single required parameter 'item' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'item' represents (e.g., bank identifier, connection ID), leaving the agent without necessary context to use the tool correctly.
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 revokes Open Finance consent, deletes connection data, and returns a re-connection URL. The verb 'disconnect' combined with 'bank' makes the purpose unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections or openfinance_force_sync. The description implies it's for disconnecting a bank but does not specify prerequisites or alternatives.
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 have clearly distinct resource-action pairs, but several pairs overlap enough to cause misselection: authenticate vs connect, openfinance_list_accounts vs openfinance_get_accounts_detail, and openfinance_list_credit_card_bills vs openfinance_get_credit_card_bill. The long descriptions help, but the monolithic marketplace tool also mixes many sub-actions that overlap with report_bug and connection management.
The openfinance_* tools mostly follow a consistent openfinance_<verb>_<noun> pattern, and the utility tools are all snake_case, but the conventions are mixed: marketplace is a bare noun, connect/authenticate are bare verbs, and openfinance_provider_status/toolkit_info lack a verb prefix. The pattern is readable but not uniform across the whole set.
At 25 tools, this sits at the top of the borderline-heavy range. The Open Finance domain justifies many of them, but the marketplace mega-tool plus several overlapping list/get variants make the set feel larger than necessary.
The surface covers the full Open Finance lifecycle well: connection search/status/sync/disconnect, accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, and category correction. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct payment/transfer initiation or single-transaction detail endpoint, but these are outside the apparent read/aggregate purpose and are workable around.