Finix MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. The tools cover separate operations: creating buyers/sellers, listing buyers/sellers, creating payment links, and searching documentation. There is no overlap in functionality that could cause misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_buyer, list_sellers, search_finix_docs). The naming is uniform across all tools, using snake_case and clear action-object pairs without any deviations.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Finix server covering identity management and documentation. Each tool earns its place by addressing core operations like CRUD for buyers/sellers and payment links, without being too sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides good coverage for identity management (create and list for buyers/sellers) and payment links, with a useful documentation search tool. A minor gap exists in lacking update or delete operations for buyers/sellers, but agents can work around this for basic workflows.
Average 3.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't disclose important traits: whether this requires authentication, what happens on duplicate emails, what the response contains, whether there are rate limits, or what happens after creation. 'Creates' implies mutation but lacks details about permissions, side effects, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Appropriately sized with two sentences: purpose statement followed by parameter listing. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first. However, the parameter listing is somewhat redundant given identical schema descriptions, and the description could be more efficient by focusing on value-added information.
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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'Buyer Identity' is in the Finix context, what happens after creation, what the tool returns, or any error conditions. With 4 required parameters and mutation behavior, more context about the operation's implications and results is needed for proper agent usage.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with identical descriptions. The description lists parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema - no format requirements, validation rules, or examples. With complete schema coverage, baseline is 3 even without extra param info in description.
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 'creates a new Buyer Identity in Finix' - a specific verb ('creates') with resource ('Buyer Identity') and system context ('Finix'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_seller' (different resource) and 'list_buyers' (different operation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_payment_link' which creates a different resource type.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to create a buyer versus other operations like listing buyers or creating sellers. It provides no context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus other tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or what the created payment link enables. For a payment-related creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences: purpose statement followed by parameter listing. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words, though the parameter section could be more integrated rather than a bullet-like list.
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?
For a payment link creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a payment link is, what it's used for, what the response contains, or any behavioral implications. The agent lacks crucial context about this financial operation's nature and consequences.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description repeats the parameter names and types but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format expectations, business rules, or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's purpose: 'create a payment link in Finix' with a specific verb (create) and resource (payment link). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_buyer/create_seller by specifying the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how this differs from potential sibling tools beyond the resource name. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'searches' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanations are clear and necessary given low schema coverage. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose and parameters more fluidly, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters well. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints, which are important for a search tool. It's adequate but has clear gaps in providing a complete context for the agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is low at 33% (only the 'query' parameter has a description in the schema). The description compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'query' as the search term, 'limit' as maximum results with default, and 'category' with enum values and default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the sparse 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'searches the Finix documentation for relevant information,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this search tool from potential documentation-related siblings (none exist in the provided sibling list, but the description doesn't address this explicitly).
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for searching documentation, or how it differs from other tools (like general web search tools not in the sibling list). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions 'fetch a list' implying a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's paginated, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns structured data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear bullet-point list of parameters with type hints and brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on return format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a list operation with filtering, more context on result structure or limitations would improve completeness.
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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: it explains that 'email' is a 'case-sensitive filter on the list based on the buyer's email field' and clarifies both parameters are optional. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by providing practical usage information that the schema alone doesn't offer, though it could detail default values or filtering logic more.
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 tool's purpose: 'fetch a list of Buyers from Finix' with a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('Buyers'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_buyer' (creation vs. listing) and 'list_sellers' (different resource type), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_finix_docs' which might overlap in search functionality. The purpose is clear but could be more specific about scope.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'list_buyers' over 'search_finix_docs' for buyer-related queries, or how it differs from 'create_buyer' in workflow context. There's no explicit when/when-not advice or prerequisite information, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions 'fetch a list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the returned list takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented, though it at least correctly indicates it's a retrieval operation rather than a mutation.
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 perfectly concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, then clearly lists parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero redundancy. The two-sentence structure is front-loaded with the main function followed by parameter details - an efficient pattern that wastes no words while covering essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal coverage. It explains what the tool does and what parameters mean, but lacks information about return format, error handling, authentication requirements, and usage context relative to sibling tools. For a simple list operation, this might be sufficient, but the absence of output details and behavioral context leaves gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'limit' as 'The number of sellers to return' and 'email' as 'A case-sensitive filter on the list based on the seller's email field.' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, clarifying the purpose and usage of each optional parameter. The description doesn't provide format examples or edge cases, but gives sufficient semantic understanding for basic use.
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 tool's purpose: 'fetch a list of Sellers from Finix' - a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('Sellers from Finix'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_seller' (creation vs. listing) and 'list_buyers' (different resource type), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_finix_docs' which serves a different function. The purpose is unambiguous but could be slightly more specific about what 'Sellers' represent in this context.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'list_sellers' over 'search_finix_docs' for seller-related queries, or how it differs from 'list_buyers' in terms of use cases. There's no discussion of prerequisites, context, or typical scenarios where this tool would be appropriate versus other listing or search operations available in the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'creates' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: required permissions, whether this is an irreversible creation, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a seller ID). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by required arguments listing, and a note about optional arguments. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the transition to 'See the schema for complete field descriptions' could be slightly more integrated. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (40 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It adequately covers the purpose and required parameters but leaves significant gaps: no behavioral context, no output information, minimal guidance on optional parameters, and no usage guidelines. For a creation tool with this complexity, more comprehensive coverage would be expected.
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 description explicitly lists and describes all 6 required parameters, adding clear semantic meaning beyond the schema. With only 15% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for the schema's deficiencies by explaining the core required fields. However, it doesn't provide similar semantic context for the 34 optional parameters, leaving them largely undocumented.
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 specific action ('creates a new Seller Identity'), target resource ('in Finix'), and scope ('with full underwriting data'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_buyer' by specifying it's for seller identities rather than buyers or other entities.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_buyer' or 'list_sellers'. It mentions 'full underwriting data' but doesn't specify prerequisites, dependencies, or when this tool would be inappropriate. The agent receives no contextual usage instructions.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![finix-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bquigley1/finix-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bquigley1/finix-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![finix-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bquigley1/finix-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bquigley1/finix-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/bquigley1/finix-mcp'

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