plaid-mcp

complete_linking

Finalizes Plaid Link after user finishes browser session by exchanging public_token for permanent access_token and caching accounts.

Instructions

Finalize a Link session once the user has completed it in their browser. Exchanges the public_token for a permanent access_token and caches accounts.

Plaid-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "link_token": "<link_token>"
    },
    "name": "complete_linking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`link_token`	Yes
`timeout_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the token exchange and account caching side effects, which is useful, but it does not explain idempotency, failure behavior, or what 'caches accounts' means operationally.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, then the mechanism, then the scope qualifier. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. The description conveys the core action but omits parameter semantics, expected response, and operational caveats, leaving an agent without enough detail to invoke it confidently in edge cases.

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%, and the description does not explain link_token or timeout_seconds. link_token is inferable from context, but timeout_seconds is entirely unexplained, and the description mentions public_token rather than the actual parameter name.

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 tool finalizes a Link session, exchanges public_token for access_token, and caches accounts. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinguishable from siblings like link_account which starts the flow.

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?

It explicitly says to use this once the user has completed Link in their browser, giving clear timing context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended point in the flow is unambiguous.

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