Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Rocket Money MCP

Rocket Money MCP

by aidanouckama
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

verify_connection

Read-onlyIdempotent

Confirms the stored Rocket Money browser session is valid by issuing a read request, without accepting credentials.

Instructions

Verify the stored Rocket Money browser session with a read request. Never accepts credentials.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: it makes an external network read against a stored browser session and never accepts credentials, which steers the agent away from passing secrets. It stops short of saying what a failed verification looks like or whether the call has side effects on session state.

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 action and resource, and the second sentence earns its place by preventing a credential-passing mistake. There is no filler.

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 check with no output schema, the definition covers what the agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only gap is the absent hint about what a verification result or failure conveys, which would help the agent interpret the response.

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 schema carries no semantics to explain; the baseline applies. The clause 'Never accepts credentials' is a useful clarification that no auth input is expected, reinforcing the empty schema.

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 pairs a specific verb (verify) with a specific resource (the stored Rocket Money browser session) and names the mechanism (a read request). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling session_status, which an agent could plausibly pick for the same task.

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?

Usage is only implied: the definition suggests calling it when you need to confirm the stored session still works, but it never says when to prefer it over session_status or what to do on failure. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools