MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
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?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that calling with no args returns a login link, that the token is a JWT, and that config-based login is permanent. Annotations already indicate idempotence, which aligns. No 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 relatively concise, packing all essential information into one dense sentence. It front-loads the purpose and provides actionable instructions. Could be improved with clearer separation of scenarios.
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 no output schema, but the description does not specify the return value or possible errors. While the low complexity reduces the need, the missing output information leaves a gap for agents expecting a response format.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter: it is a JWT string for session login, and omitting it returns a link. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.
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 authentication for MCP.AI in IDE agents, specifying two methods (config-based and session-based) with explicit verb 'log in' and resource 'access token'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on user authentication rather than external service connections.
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 explains when to use each method: config-based for permanent, non-expiring connection, and token parameter for session-only login. It provides context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives, making it clear but not exhaustive.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The Open Finance tools are granular (e.g., list vs get vs force_sync for different resources), and the marketplace, authentication, and utility tools do not overlap. No two tools could be easily confused.
The Open Finance tools consistently use the 'openfinance_' prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_accounts, get_balance). Other tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) use simple verb names, which is a minor deviation but still clear and predictable.
25 tools is on the higher end, but the server covers a broad domain (marketplace + comprehensive Open Finance operations). Each tool serves a specific function, and the count is justified by the depth of functionality.
The toolset provides full lifecycle coverage for the Open Finance domain: list, get, sync, update, transactions, categories, investments, loans, credit cards, and connections. The marketplace tool is also feature-rich. No obvious gaps for the intended purpose.