de en es ja ko ru zh

finary-mcp

Name: finary-mcp
Author: adagues

by adagues

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

finary-mcp

Un servidor deliberadamente de solo lectura Model Context Protocol para Finary, construido sobre el cliente no oficial finary-uapi.

[!WARNING] Este proyecto es independiente de Finary y no está respaldado, soportado o mantenido por Finary. Depende de endpoints privados y no documentados a través de finary-uapi; cualquiera de los dos proyectos puede fallar sin previo aviso. No es asesoramiento financiero, fiscal, legal o de inversión.

Modelo de seguridad

finary-mcp es intencionalmente un adaptador estrecho y de solo lectura:

Solo expone consultas de perfil, organización, institución, cartera y transacciones.
No tiene ninguna herramienta de inicio de sesión, importación de cuentas, creación, actualización, eliminación, transferencia, comercio o CLI genérica.
Construye comandos de finary-uapi a partir de una lista blanca fija, sin shell.
Los valores de filtro se validan antes de la ejecución.
No devuelve stdout/stderr del upstream cuando una solicitud falla, porque un flujo de inicio de sesión del upstream puede imprimir material de sesión.
Su directorio de estado es explícito (FINARY_MCP_STATE_DIR); no busca tokens en directorios de trabajo arbitrarios.

Esto reduce escrituras accidentales a través de MCP. No hace que una máquina sea segura si otro proceso puede leer tus archivos de sesión. Ejecuta el servidor solo para una cuenta y perfil en los que confíes.

Advertencia importante de autenticación

«Solo lectura» se refiere a los datos de cartera de Finary. finary-uapi actualiza su sesión de Clerk antes de las solicitudes y puede reescribir jwt.json; por lo tanto, el directorio de estado privado debe permanecer escribible por la cuenta de servicio local aunque ninguna herramienta MCP cambie los datos de Finary. El servidor nunca devuelve ese archivo, cookies o diagnósticos de procesos secundarios.

finary-uapi también trae fuzzywuzzy como dependencia transitiva GPL-2.0. Revisa el grafo de dependencias upstream y las implicaciones de licencia para tu distribución o despliegue previsto.

Related MCP server: monarch

Requisitos previos

Python 3.10+.
Una sesión local de Finary ya creada por finary-uapi.
Un directorio privado que contenga tanto jwt.json como localCookiesMozilla.txt, con modo 0700 para el directorio y 0600 para los archivos.

El servidor no soporta Google OAuth por sí mismo. Sigue el proceso de autenticación soportado por finary-uapi para crear o renovar la sesión local. Nunca envíes una contraseña, código TOTP, JWT, exportación de cookies o archivo de sesión a un agente, repositorio, rastreador de problemas o chat.

Instalación

python -m venv .venv
. .venv/bin/activate
pip install finary-mcp

Para desarrollo desde un checkout:

pip install -e '.[dev]'
pytest -q

Configurar un host MCP

Configura FINARY_MCP_STATE_DIR al directorio que contiene tu sesión de Finary. Si finary-uapi está instalado en un entorno virtual separado, configura FINARY_UAPI_PYTHON al ejecutable de Python de ese entorno.

Ejemplo de configuración genérica stdio:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "finary": {
      "command": "/path/to/finary-mcp/.venv/bin/finary-mcp",
      "env": {
        "FINARY_MCP_STATE_DIR": "/private/path/to/finary-state",
        "FINARY_UAPI_PYTHON": "/path/to/finary-uapi/.venv/bin/python"
      }
    }
  }
}

Usa rutas absolutas. El directorio de estado son datos privados y nunca debe ser confirmado. El .gitignore suministrado excluye los archivos de sesión conocidos.

Ejemplo de Hermes Agent

mcp_servers:
  finary:
    command: /path/to/finary-mcp/.venv/bin/finary-mcp
    env:
      FINARY_MCP_STATE_DIR: /private/path/to/finary-state
      FINARY_UAPI_PYTHON: /path/to/finary-uapi/.venv/bin/python
    tools:
      include:
        - finary_me
        - finary_organizations
        - finary_institution_connections
        - finary_portfolio
        - finary_transactions

Añade esto a través del flujo de trabajo MCP/configuración de Hermes en lugar de copiar credenciales en un archivo de configuración público. Reinicia el proceso de Hermes después de añadir un servidor para que la detección de herramientas se ejecute de nuevo.

Herramientas

Tool	Propósito de solo lectura
`finary_me`	Lee el perfil autenticado.
`finary_organizations`	Lista las organizaciones de Finary accesibles.
`finary_institution_connections`	Lista las conexiones de instituciones financieras.
`finary_portfolio`	Lee una clase de cartera permitida: inversiones, valores, criptos, fondos euro, SCPI, bienes raíces o cuentas de tenencia.
`finary_transactions`	Lee transacciones de cuenta corriente, inversión o crédito con paginación y filtros de fecha/cuenta.

Dependencia: `finary-uapi`

Este proyecto es un adaptador, no una reimplementación de la API de Finary. Llama a la CLI de finary-uapi desde el proyecto lasconic/finary _uapi, cuyo paquete está actualmente declarado en pyproject.toml como finary-uapi>=0.2.3,<0.3.

Esa dependencia usa endpoints de Finary no documentados y persiste una sesión local. Revisa su fuente y licencia antes de usar este servidor. Cuando se necesite una actualización upstream, pruébala primero en un entorno separado y fija una versión compatible aquí.

Desarrollo

pytest -q
python -m build

Las pruebas no usan una cuenta de Finary en vivo y no deben crear archivos de sesión. Antes de publicar, escanea los archivos preparados en busca de jwt.json, localCookiesMozilla.txt, credenciales, correos electrónicos, cookies y tokens.

Licencia

MIT. Ver LICENSE.

Available Tools

5 tools

finary_institution_connectionsA

List connected financial institutions and their connection status.

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention read-only nature, response format, pagination, or any caveats about connection status semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, concise sentence with no filler. The key action and object are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description is reasonably complete. However, without an output schema or any mention of response fields (e.g., what 'status' values look like), an agent lacks some context about the expected result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter detail, and there is nothing to compensate for since the schema is trivially complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('connected financial institutions') along with a relevant detail ('connection status'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like finary_portfolio or finary_transactions by focusing on institution connections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer the use case from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

finary_meA

Read the authenticated Finary profile. Does not modify Finary.

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Does not modify Finary', which is a key behavioral trait for a read operation. It does not mention return format or errors, but for a simple profile read this is acceptable. Adding 'Read' reinforces the non-destructive nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a clear non-modification statement. No fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the essential purpose and side-effect behavior. It does not explicitly state return data format (no output schema exists), but an agent can reasonably infer it returns the profile object. Minor gap, but adequate for this simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because none exist. Schema coverage is 100% vacuously, and no parameter documentation is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'Read' with a specific resource, 'authenticated Finary profile', and explicitly states it does not modify. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like finary_transactions or finary_portfolio without ambiguity. The purpose is clear and specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates the tool retrieves the user's own Finary profile, which sets clear context for when it applies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when not to use it, though the resource is so distinct that usage is implied. Missing explicit routing to siblings, but adequate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

finary_organizationsB

List Finary organizations available to the authenticated user.

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' and mentions 'authenticated user', which implies a read-only operation but does not state side effects, rate limits, response format, or any required authentication details. The lack of explicit behavioral context is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is perfectly concise and front-loads the core action, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but lacks important context. It does not explain pagination, what an 'organization' entails, or how this relates to sibling tools. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral and situational details are needed for complete understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is a 4, and the tool meets this baseline as there is nothing to clarify.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the function: 'List Finary organizations' with the scope 'available to the authenticated user.' The verb 'list' is specific and the resource is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the name and context make the intent obvious, so it earns a 4.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like finary_portfolio or finary_transactions. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and generic phrasing. There are no exclusions or specific scenarios mentioned, so this dimension is weakly addressed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

finary_portfolioB

Read a portfolio class: investments, securities, cryptos, fonds_euro, scpis, real_estates, or holdings_accounts.

Name	Required	Description	Default
`org_id`	No
`asset_type`	No		investments

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the verb 'Read', implicitly indicating a non-mutating operation, but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, return format, or any side effects. The list of asset types adds domain context but not behavioral transparency. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. The verb is front-loaded, and the enumeration of asset types is compact and informative. Every part earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and any other usage context, but it does not. It omits any mention of the return structure, error handling, or the org_id parameter, which is essential to know when calling the tool. The enumeration of asset types covers only part of the invocation requirements, leaving the definition incomplete for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly lists the valid values for asset_type, which is useful and goes beyond the schema (where no descriptions exist). However, it completely ignores org_id, leaving its purpose and usage undocumented. The partial compensation leads to a middling score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Read') applied to a well-defined resource ('portfolio class'), and enumerates all valid asset types (investments, securities, cryptos, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming a resource category not covered by any sibling (e.g., me, organizations, transactions).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for reading portfolio holdings of a given asset type, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. Since siblings are clearly different domains (me, organizations, connections, transactions), the context is somewhat clear, but the description does not explicitly state scenarios or exclusions, so it remains at the 'implied' level.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

finary_transactionsB

Read transactions for checking, investment, or credit accounts with optional filters.

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`query`	No
`marked`	No
`account`	No
`perpage`	No
`end_date`	No
`start_date`	No
`institution`	No
`account_type`	Yes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'read', which implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose pagination semantics, filter behavior, response structure, or any side effects. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but arguably too sparse for a tool with 9 parameters. It front-loads the core purpose, but lacks structure to organize the various optional filters, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not explain date formats, pagination behavior, query syntax, or how filters interact, leaving too much to guesswork.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only generically mentions 'optional filters' and names account types, which maps loosely to the 'account_type' parameter, but it does not explain any of the other parameters (page, query, marked, account, perpage, dates, institution). The added value over the raw schema is minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'read', the resource 'transactions', and scopes to specific account types (checking, investment, credit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with user, org, connections, and portfolio data, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies this is the tool for transaction data, and since no sibling tool covers transactions, the usage context is evident. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but given the sibling set, the division of responsibility is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

5 tool updatesv0.1.0Aug 27, 2026
- First observedfinary_institution_connections
- First observedfinary_me
- First observedfinary_organizations
- First observedfinary_portfolio
- First observedfinary_transactions

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Scored 2026-08-27 01:00 across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a clearly distinct domain: user profile, organizations, institution connections, portfolio classes, and transactions. No overlap in purpose, and the descriptions make the boundaries obvious.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a consistent 'finary_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun (me, organizations, institution_connections, portfolio, transactions). The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a read-only financial data API. Each tool covers a major data category without redundancy, and the count is neither sparse nor bloated.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core read operations for a personal finance platform: user, orgs, connections, portfolio, and transactions. Minor gaps exist, such as no detailed per-asset breakdown beyond portfolio class, but the essential workflows are supported.

Maintenance

ActivityStale

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

FinchOAuth
ch.fjnch
Read-only access to your Finch finances: accounts, transactions, spending, net worth, goals.
Finance
1
https://api.fjnch.ch/mcp
Fillfolio MCPOAuth
com.fillfolio
Read-only Fillfolio portfolios, holdings, cash, liabilities, activity, spending and budgets.
Finance
1
https://fillfolio.com/api/mcp
Genie Expense TrackerOAuth
io.github.osamaadam
Read-only access to Genie accounts, transactions, investments, and financial summaries.
Finance
1
https://genie-mobile.duckdns.org/mcp
Synci AOAuth
io.synci
Read-only access to your bank, investment, and crypto accounts: balances, transactions, holdings.
Finance
52
https://api.synci.io/mcp

Related MCP Servers

questrade-mcp
Finance Research & Data
agustinsacco
A
license
B
quality
C
maintenance
Enables read-only access to Questrade accounts, portfolios, market data, transactions, technical analysis, and order history through MCP.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-09-15 17:57 UTC)
11
MIT
monarch
Finance
simplemind-dev
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
Enables read-only access to Monarch Money financial data, including accounts, transactions, cash flow, spending, and income, via MCP, with secure local credential storage.
Updated a month ago (2026-10-03 16:00 UTC)
1
MIT
Fillfolio MCPofficial
Finance Data Platforms
fillfolio
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Enables read-only access to a Fillfolio account's normalized portfolio data, including net worth, holdings with cost basis, cash and liabilities, activity, and exact asset details, plus optional bank spending summaries, transactions, and budgets for eligible accounts. Clients can query stored data only — they cannot trade, move money, modify holdings, or access credentials.
Updated 15 days ago (2026-10-17 08:50 UTC)
9 npm
MIT
LunchMoney MCP Server
Finance Cryptocurrency
Margaux0469
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
Enables AI assistants and other MCP clients to access and manage personal finance data, including transactions, categories, tags, budgets, recurring items, accounts, crypto, and balance history through the provider's API.
Updated 12 days ago (2026-10-20 05:03 UTC)
22 npm
MIT

finary-mcp

Modelo de seguridad

Advertencia importante de autenticación

Requisitos previos

Instalación

Configurar un host MCP

Ejemplo de Hermes Agent

Herramientas

Dependencia: finary-uapi

Desarrollo

Licencia

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Fillfolio MCPofficial

Dependencia: `finary-uapi`