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 provide readOnly/idempotent hints. The description adds value by detailing different return states (authenticated vs missing credentials) and the presence of connect_url, going beyond what annotations convey.
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 two sentences, each adding unique value without redundancy. The structure front-loads the core purpose.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It explains the two primary states and what is returned, though it could briefly note the lack of input requirements.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description has no need to explain parameter meaning. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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, distinguishing between fully connected and missing credentials states. This verb+resource pair is well-defined and distinct from sibling tools.
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 usage for checking connection status but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'openfinance_list_connections'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.