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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides detailed behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the output format for two scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, or connect_url when missing). This is informative for the agent.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then clarifying the two states. Every sentence adds value without 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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return values and states. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
There are no parameters, so description cannot add parameter meaning. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's output behavior.
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 returns connection status and URLs, and explains the two possible states (all connected vs missing credentials). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like '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 implies when to use (to check connection status or obtain URLs for missing credentials). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use, the context of sibling tools makes it clear that 'authenticate' is the alternative for performing authentication.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The six general MCP platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are separate from the six Wise-specific query tools (wise_get_balance_statement, wise_list_profiles, etc.). No two tools overlap in functionality.
The Wise-specific tools consistently follow the pattern 'wise_verb_noun' (e.g., wise_get_balance_statement, wise_list_profiles). The general tools use short descriptive names without a prefix, which is a minor inconsistency, but the grouping is logical and readable.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped. It provides sufficient coverage for both the MCP platform utilities and the Wise financial data integration without being bloated or sparse.
The tool set covers the core read operations for Wise (profiles, balances, transactions, card events, activities) and the essential MCP platform functions. Missing are write operations like creating transfers, but the server's focus appears to be data retrieval, so this is a minor gap.