Skip to main content
Glama
akutishevsky

Monobank MCP Server

by akutishevsky
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_client_info retrieves client and account data, get_currency_rates fetches currency exchange rates, and get_statement obtains transaction statements. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' as the prefix, using snake_case uniformly. This predictable naming scheme enhances readability and reduces confusion when scanning the tool set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a banking domain, as it lacks operations for actions like transfers, payments, or account management. While the tools cover basic read operations, the scope is limited and may not support comprehensive banking workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a banking server, missing essential CRUD operations such as creating transactions, updating account details, or managing funds. It only provides read-only access to client info, currency rates, and statements, leaving significant gaps that could hinder agent performance in real-world banking tasks.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 11 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description must disclose all behavioral traits. It reveals time and rate limits but contradicts the schema on parameter format (Unix time vs ISO 8601), reducing trustworthiness.

    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?

    Description is concise but contains conflicting information. It front-loads purpose and constraints but sacrifices accuracy.

    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?

    No output schema, so description should explain return value; it does not. Contradictions in parameter format make it incomplete. Missing details on statement structure.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0% per context, so description must compensate. Instead, it misrepresents parameter formats (says Unix time, schema says ISO 8601) and only partially describes account (default '0'). No value added.

    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?

    Description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: get a Monobank statement for a time range. However, confusion between Unix time (description) and ISO 8601 (schema) slightly diminishes clarity. Sibling tools are distinct.

    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?

    Provides constraints on maximum time period (31 days + 1 hour) and rate limit (once per 60 seconds), but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Discloses rate limit (1 per 60s) but does not mention read-only nature or other behavioral traits, leaving gaps without annotations.

    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 concise sentences, front-loaded purpose, 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?

    Covers purpose and key constraint; lacks output format details but is adequate for a simple read tool.

    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?

    No parameters exist; baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Description correctly avoids adding unnecessary detail.

    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?

    Clearly states it retrieves client information, accounts, and jars. Distinct from siblings get_currency_rates and get_statement.

    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?

    Provides a rate limit constraint but no guidance on when to use vs alternatives or prerequisites.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the rate limit and error condition, which is important behavioral information. However, it does not detail the return format or other behaviors, so a 4 is given.

    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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraint. No unnecessary words. Every sentence 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?

    Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the source and a key constraint. It might lack details on the return structure, but for a basic list retrieval, it is sufficiently complete.

    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 schema has zero parameters, making schema coverage 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

    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 'Get' and the resource 'a basic list of currency rates from Monobank', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_client_info and get_statement which serve different purposes.

    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 explicitly mentions the refresh rate constraint: 'once per 5 minutes, otherwise an error will be thrown', providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so a 4 is appropriate.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

monobank-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

monobank-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/akutishevsky/monobank-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server