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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds detail on the return contents but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or rate limits. Given the annotations, the description provides sufficient but minimal added context.
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?
Description is a single, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and lists specific return contents efficiently.
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 simple informational tool with no parameters and annotations, the description fully explains what the tool returns. It covers all relevant aspects of toolkit state, making it complete even without an output schema.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. Baseline is 4 for zero-param tools.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state with specific components: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. Verb 'Returns' is specific, and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from siblings like show_version or marketplace.
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?
Description implies usage for retrieving toolkit status but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, the detailed description provides clear context and differentiates from sibling tools, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criteria.
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.