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

Преднамеренно только для чтения сервер Model Context Protocol для Finary, построенный поверх неофициального клиента finary-uapi.

[!WARNING] Этот проект не зависит от Finary и не одобрен, не поддерживается и не сопровождается Finary. Он использует частные недокументированные конечные точки через finary-uapi; любой из проектов может сломаться без предупреждения. Это не финансовый, налоговый, юридический или инвестиционный совет.

Модель безопасности

finary-mcp — это намеренно узкий адаптер только для чтения:

Он предоставляет только запросы профиля, организации, учреждения, портфеля и транзакций.
У него нет инструментов входа, импорта счетов, создания, обновления, удаления, перевода, торговли или универсального CLI.
Он формирует команды finary-uapi из фиксированного разрешённого списка без использования оболочки.
Значения фильтров проверяются перед выполнением.
Он не возвращает stdout/stderr вышестоящего процесса при сбое запроса, потому что процесс входа вышестоящего сервиса может выводить материал сеанса.
Его каталог состояния задаётся явно (FINARY_MCP_STATE_DIR); сервер не ищет токены в произвольных рабочих каталогах.

Это снижает риск случайных записей через MCP. Это не делает машину безопасной, если другой процесс может читать ваши файлы сеанса. Запускайте сервер только для учётной записи и профиля, которым вы доверяете.

Важное замечание об аутентификации

«Только для чтения» относится к данным портфеля Finary. finary-uapi обновляет свой сеанс Clerk перед запросами и может перезаписывать jwt.json; поэтому частный каталог состояния должен оставаться доступным для записи локальной служебной учётной записью, даже если ни один инструмент MCP не изменяет данные Finary. Сервер никогда не возвращает этот файл, куки или диагностику дочерних процессов.

finary-uapi также привносит fuzzywuzzy как транзитивную зависимость GPL-2.0. Изучите граф зависимостей вышестоящего проекта и лицензионные последствия для предполагаемого распространения или развёртывания.

Related MCP server: monarch

Предварительные требования

Python 3.10+.
Локальный сеанс Finary, уже созданный finary-uapi.
Частный каталог, содержащий jwt.json и localCookiesMozilla.txt, с режимом 0700 для каталога и 0600 для файлов.

Сервер сам не поддерживает Google OAuth. Следуйте процессу аутентификации, поддерживаемому finary-uapi, чтобы создать или обновить локальный сеанс. Никогда не отправляйте пароль, код TOTP, JWT, экспорт куки или файл сеанса агенту, репозиторию, трекеру задач или чату.

Установка

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

Для разработки из клонированного репозитория:

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

Настройка MCP-хоста

Установите FINARY_MCP_STATE_DIR в каталог, содержащий ваш сеанс Finary. Если finary-uapi установлен в отдельном виртуальном окружении, установите FINARY_UAPI_PYTHON на исполняемый файл Python этого окружения.

Пример общей конфигурации 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"
      }
    }
  }
}

Используйте абсолютные пути. Каталог состояния — это приватные данные, которые никогда нельзя коммитить. Прилагаемый .gitignore исключает известные файлы сеанса.

Пример для 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

Добавляйте это через рабочий процесс MCP/конфигурации Hermes, а не копируйте учётные данные в публичный конфигурационный файл. Перезапустите процесс Hermes после добавления сервера, чтобы обнаружение инструментов запустилось заново.

Инструменты

Инструмент	Назначение (только чтение)
`finary_me`	Прочитать аутентифицированный профиль.
`finary_organizations`	Перечислить доступные организации Finary.
`finary_institution_connections`	Перечислить подключения финансовых учреждений.
`finary_portfolio`	Прочитать допустимый класс портфеля: инвестиции, ценные бумаги, криптовалюты, fonds euro, SCPI, недвижимость или холдинговые счета.
`finary_transactions`	Прочитать транзакции по текущим, инвестиционным или кредитным счетам с постраничной навигацией и фильтрами по дате и счёту.

Зависимость: `finary-uapi`

Этот проект — адаптер, а не повторная реализация API Finary. Он вызывает CLI finary-uapi из проекта lasconic/finary _uapi, чей пакет в настоящее время объявлен в pyproject.toml как finary-uapi>=0.2.3,<0.3.

Эта зависимость использует недокументированные конечные точки Finary и сохраняет локальный сеанс. Изучите её исходный код и лицензию перед использованием этого сервера. Когда потребуется обновление вышестоящего проекта, сначала протестируйте его в отдельном окружении и зафиксируйте здесь совместимую версию.

Разработка

pytest -q
python -m build

Тесты не используют реальную учётную запись Finary и не должны создавать файлы сеанса. Перед публикацией проверьте подготовленные файлы на наличие jwt.json, localCookiesMozilla.txt, учётных данных, адресов электронной почты, куки и токенов.

Лицензия

MIT. См. 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

Модель безопасности

Важное замечание об аутентификации

Предварительные требования

Установка

Настройка MCP-хоста

Пример для Hermes Agent

Инструменты

Зависимость: finary-uapi

Разработка

Лицензия

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Fillfolio MCPofficial

Зависимость: `finary-uapi`