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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by detailing the nature of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond what annotations state.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates the four key components of the toolkit state. There is no filler or redundant phrasing, making it highly concise and structured.
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 info tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's return content. It specifies exactly what the agent can learn from this tool, which is complete given the 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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none, so nothing is lost.
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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exact content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on openfinance data operations, connect, or authenticate.
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 by specifying exactly what the tool reports, implying it is the place to go for a snapshot of toolkit state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools offer this meta-level view, so the guidance is sufficient.
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.
The openfinance_* tools are clearly separated by resource and action—accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, and connection status—so an agent can usually tell them apart. A few pairs remain confusable, notably openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item and the monolithic marketplace tool overlapping with report_bug, but the detailed descriptions largely resolve the boundaries.
The openfinance_* subset follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun convention (list_accounts, get_item_status, update_transaction_category), and non-openfinance tools like report_bug and show_version fit the same style. The pattern breaks with bare verbs/nouns such as connect, authenticate, marketplace, and toolkit_info, but the domain prefix makes the majority predictable.
25 tools sits at the top of the heavy-but-manageable range, and the Open Finance resource pairs plus platform/marketplace tools each earn some place. The count feels slightly bloated because marketplace bundles many capabilities and several status/sync tools could be consolidated, but the scope is broad enough that the number is defensible.
The toolkit covers the core Open Finance surface thoroughly: accounts, balances, transactions, credit-card bills, loans, investments, categories, connection lifecycle, sync, and provider health, plus marketplace and platform plumbing. Minor gaps exist—no direct connect-bank action beyond URLs, no per-transaction get endpoint, and some marketplace operations are only accessible through the single marketplace tool—but standard workflows are not dead-ended.