Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| 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 this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds valuable extra context by specifying the exact conditional output: 'authenticated:true' with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover the core function and the two relevant conditional outcomes. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of the schema or annotations.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is complete. It explains the primary output and both possible states (all connected vs. missing credentials), including what URLs are returned. No output schema exists, but the description provides the necessary return-value semantics.
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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly focuses on the output and conditions, which is the only meaningful semantic content for a parameterless tool.
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 purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It uses a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status rather than initiating authentication. The conditional behavior further clarifies its scope.
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 provides clear context for when the tool is useful: to check whether providers are connected and to obtain connect URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly exclude or compare against sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections, but the conditions imply when this status check is 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 tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially within the openfinance_* group (list vs get vs sync vs status). A few potential overlaps exist (e.g., openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, openfinance_get_account_balance vs openfinance_list_accounts), but descriptions are detailed enough to guide correct selection.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., openfinance_list_accounts, openfinance_get_item_status). However, non-openfinance tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) use a different style, and one tool (openfinance_list_transactions_by_item) breaks the pattern slightly. Overall readable and predictable within the primary domain.
With 25 tools, the count is on the heavy side per the calibration rubric (16-25 feels heavy). The server covers a broad financial data domain, which justifies the number, but it may present a steep learning curve and potential overwhelm for agents.
The tool surface is comprehensive for read-only Open Finance data access: accounts, transactions, balances, bills, loans, investments, category management, connection lifecycle, and status monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct payment initiation, no investment transaction creation), but for the stated purpose of data and analysis, coverage is strong.