increase_list_check_transfersList check transfers (read-only observability; this server does NOT create transfers). Increase API: GET /check_transfers. Filter by account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1–100. Default 100. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's next_cursor. | |
| account_id | No | Only check transfers for this account id. |
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 significant value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly stating the server does NOT create transfers, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also provides the API endpoint, enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.
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: a single sentence followed by the API endpoint and filter note. Every part is essential and front-loaded, achieving maximum efficiency.
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?
While the description covers key aspects (read-only, API, filter), it lacks any indication of the return format or structure. Since there is no output schema, a brief mention of the response type would improve completeness.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description only mentions 'Filter by account,' which is already in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'check transfers', explicitly notes it is read-only and does not create transfers, and mentions filtering by account. This distinguishes it from creation tools and other list tools in the sibling set.
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 basic context (read-only, filter by account) but does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling list tools (e.g., list_ach_transfers, list_wire_transfers) or state when to prefer it over alternatives.
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 targets a distinct resource type (account, account number, ACH transfer, etc.) with clear verb_noun naming, making them easily distinguishable.
All tools follow a consistent `increase_verb_noun` pattern in snake_case, with verbs like create, get, list, lookup.
18 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the scope of banking operations (accounts, transfers, transactions, cards, entities) justifies the count.
The server is heavily read-only with only one mutation (create_external_account). Missing create/update/delete for accounts, transfers, cards, etc., which limits its usefulness for full banking workflows.