finance-reconcile-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.3.0
Disambiguation5/5
All tools have clearly distinct purposes, with prefixes (setup_, reconcile_, firefly_) grouping them by domain. Even within the large setup group, each tool targets a unique action or object, leaving no ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent pattern: {domain}_{action}_{object} using snake_case. The prefixes are uniform, and verbs and nouns are used predictably throughout the set.
Tool Count4/5
19 tools is slightly above the ideal range of 3-15 but still well-scoped for the domain. Each tool contributes to setup, reconciliation, or Firefly-specific operations without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full reconciliation lifecycle: setup (mapping, rules, ignored findings), reconciliation audit (missing transactions, stale accounts, balance mismatches), and Firefly analysis (duplicates, uncategorized). Minor gaps like automated transaction creation are likely intentional to avoid mutation.
Average 3.7/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 15, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic comparison, such as output format or side effects.
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 it lacks necessary detail about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified. It is not optimally sized for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 unspecified parameters, no output schema, and no clarification of 'mapped', the description leaves significant gaps. For a comparison tool, details on tolerance, date ranges, and return values are critical.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (days, account, end_date, tolerance, start_date). The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 action ('compare') and the specific resources ('mapped SimpleFIN account balances against Firefly III account balances'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'reconcile_find_missing_transactions' that deal with transactions.
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 vs. alternatives such as 'reconcile_find_missing_transactions' or 'reconcile_run_audit'. The purpose is clear, but context for selection is missing.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it compares mapped accounts and returns missing transactions, but no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, performance) are provided.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. However, it lacks any structure (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability, especially for a tool with multiple parameters.
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 0% parameter coverage and absence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about what the tool does with its parameters and what the output looks like. The current description is insufficient for complete understanding.
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% and the description provides no information about the four parameters (days, account, start_date, end_date), leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them effectively.
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 ('compare... returning') and the resource ('SimpleFIN transactions absent from Firefly III'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like reconcile_run_audit or check_balance_mismatches by focusing on finding missing 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 use during reconciliation to find missing transactions, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., reconcile_run_audit) nor when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it can optionally check live accounts via check_remote. However, it does not explain what validation entails (e.g., structural checks, account existence, connectivity) or what happens on failure. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate because the description adds some value but lacks depth.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Validate an account-map JSON object or the configured account-map.json file'). No unnecessary words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's scope.
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 output schema, so the description should clarify what the validation result looks like (e.g., errors, success message). It also does not mention validation criteria (e.g., required fields, account existence checks). Given the complexity of validating an account map against live accounts, this omission leaves the agent needing to infer behavior.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains check_remote ('optionally checking live SimpleFIN and Firefly accounts') but only vaguely hints at account_map ('account-map JSON object'). The type and expected structure of account_map are not clarified. This partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but is not thorough enough for a high score.
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 validates an account-map JSON object or file, and optionally checks live SimpleFIN and Firefly accounts. It distinguishes from sibling tools like setup_suggest_account_map (which suggests mappings) and setup_save_account_map (which saves). However, it does not explicitly differentiate among other validate-type tools, and the specific meaning of 'validate' is somewhat vague.
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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a configured account map first, or that this should be used before saving. Sibling tools like setup_save_account_map suggest a workflow, but no comparison is given.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety aspects. It adds context about the use case but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or output format.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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?
Despite annotations covering safety, the description lacks crucial details: the meaning and allowed values of the type parameter, and the output format. For a tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, this is insufficient.
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?
The schema has one parameter (type) with 0% description coverage and no enum values. The description does not mention the parameter or its allowed values, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it.
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 lists Firefly III asset/liability accounts for building account-map.json. It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (accounts) and distinguishes from sibling tools like setup_list_simplefin_accounts.
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 mentions the purpose ('for building account-map.json'), implying when to use it, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to alternatives like setup_list_simplefin_accounts.
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?
The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that financial systems are not mutated but a local snapshot is saved. This clarifies the false readOnlyHint and non-destructive nature. However, it could elaborate on other behavioral traits like idempotency or rate limits.
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 the primary action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters with no descriptions and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks sufficient context for complex parameter selection and return value understanding.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent has no guidance on what parameters like days, account, or end_date mean. The description does not compensate at all.
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's action ('Run the full reconciliation audit') and resource ('audit'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are for setup, finding, or checking.
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 a safe, read-only audit use case ('without mutating financial systems') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any when-not-to guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the matching logic (account, amount, date, description similarity). Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, which aligns with 'find' semantics. No contradiction.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.
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?
Despite having four parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain parameter usage or return format. The tool has no required parameters, but the description doesn't clarify defaults or behavior with no arguments. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'amount' but no `amount` parameter exists. It does not clarify how `days`, `start_date`, `end_date`, or `account` relate to the matching criteria. This omission and misrepresentation makes the parameters poorly communicated.
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 finds possible duplicate Firefly III transactions and specifies the matching criteria: same mapped account, amount, nearby date, and description similarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup or reconciliation tools.
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 does not mention when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for related tasks.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, etc. The description reinforces non-destructive behavior ('suggest without applying'), but adds limited new context beyond annotations. No side effects or additional behavioral details are disclosed.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key nuance (without applying). No unnecessary words or repetition of schema fields.
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?
Despite being a read-only analysis tool, the description omits expected outputs, grouping criteria, and parameter roles. With no output schema and zero param coverage, the agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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%, and the description fails to explain any of the four parameters (days, account, end_date, start_date). The agent has no guidance on how parameters affect grouping or which are needed, severely hampering correct invocation.
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's function: grouping transactions with missing categories by likely merchant and suggesting category labels without applying them. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools (setup, reconcile, etc.).
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 implicitly indicates read-only use ('without applying them'), aligning with annotations. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided, though siblings are sufficiently different to infer context.
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?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the context of date comparison but does not detail behavior such as what happens if accounts have no transactions or how results are formatted. This is adequate but not enhanced beyond 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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how it indicates staleness. It also fails to document the parameters. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params), more detail is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not clarify the meaning or usage of 'days', 'account', 'start_date', or 'end_date'. It only vaguely refers to 'latest transaction dates', leaving the agent to guess parameter roles.
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's function: comparing latest SimpleFIN transaction dates against Firefly III dates for mapped accounts. It uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('transaction dates'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reconcile_find_missing_transactions or reconcile_check_balance_mismatches.
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 the tool is for identifying stale accounts by comparing dates, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or context about 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?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by confirming the write is local-only and does not affect external systems, providing useful context beyond the 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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence contributes meaning without 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?
Despite reasonable annotations, the description fails to explain the parameters or what the tool expects as input. For a tool with 3 parameters including a required confirm_write and an undefined account_map, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent underinformed.
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%, and the description provides no information about the three parameters (overwrite, account_map, confirm_write). The agent cannot determine their purpose or required format, especially for the undefined account_map object.
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 writes account-map.json to a local path, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_suggest_account_map and setup_validate_account_map, which perform different actions.
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 explains that the tool only writes local config and never mutates Firefly III or SimpleFIN, providing clear boundary context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the exclusion clarifies its limited scope.
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?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by clarifying it only modifies local config and never touches Firefly III or SimpleFIN, which goes beyond 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?
Description is two sentences with no unnecessary words, effectively conveying purpose and safety scope.
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?
Lacks parameter semantics and does not discuss return values or how the rule interacts with other tools (e.g., listing rules). For a simple tool, this is adequate but with gaps.
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 what 'match' and 'category' mean. The agent must infer semantics from parameter names and constraints, which is insufficient.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Add or update') and the resource ('local category suggestion rule'), and distinguishes it from tools that interact with external systems by clarifying it only writes local config.
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?
Description implies usage (local config only) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like setup_remove_category_rule 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds that it never mutates Firefly III or SimpleFIN, clarifying the scope of side effects. However, it does not explain what happens if the fingerprint already exists (e.g., overwrite or ignore), which would enhance transparency.
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, no unnecessary words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and includes a clarifying statement about side effects. Every sentence adds value.
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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not explain what a 'finding fingerprint' is, how to obtain one, or the effect of the tool in the broader workflow. However, sibling tools like setup_list_ignored_findings provide context.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'finding fingerprint' but does not explain the 'type' or 'reason' parameters. The enum values for type are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should clarify the role of each parameter.
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 action ('Add') and the resource ('finding fingerprint to the local ignored-findings file'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like setup_unignore_finding by focusing on adding rather than removing.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for ignoring findings, but lacks explicit guidance on conditions or exclusions. The note about not mutating external systems provides some context but not usage advice.
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?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and read-only behavior; description adds that it fetches accounts and returns a draft, reinforcing the non-destructive nature. No contradictions.
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 brief sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and immediately clarifies it does not write files. No unnecessary words.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool with no input and clear action, but lacks details about the output format or how the draft is structured. Could benefit from mentioning it uses stored configs.
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 coverage is 100% (no parameters), so baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter information since none exist, but could have explained why no input is needed.
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?
Description clearly states it fetches accounts from two specific sources (SimpleFIN and Firefly III) and returns a draft map. Distinguishes from siblings like setup_validate_account_map and setup_save_account_map which have different verbs.
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 says 'Does not write files' which implies read-only usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like setup_validate_account_map or setup_save_account_map. Context from sibling tool names suggests a sequence, but not stated.
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?
Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description clarifies that the operation only affects a local file and does not mutate external systems. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the structured metadata.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no extraneous information. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it immediately clear.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action and its scope (local only). It is complete enough given the complexity, though a brief note on what a fingerprint is would raise it further.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'fingerprint', and the tool description does not explain what a fingerprint is or its expected format. The minimal context 'Remove a finding fingerprint' implies it identifies a finding, but this is insufficient for precise usage.
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 action: 'Remove a finding fingerprint from the local ignored-findings file.' The verb 'remove' and resource 'finding fingerprint' are specific. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'setup_ignore_finding' which would add rather than remove, though not explicitly named.
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 provides limited guidance on when to use this tool. It states that it 'never mutates Firefly III or SimpleFIN,' which is helpful context but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or specify prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred over alternatives.
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds context about not mutating Firefly III or SimpleFIN and using local snapshot, which is consistent but not extensive beyond 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?
Single sentence with no filler, every word adds value. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and behavioral constraints without gaps.
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, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, so baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource ('compact manual review plan') and source ('latest local audit history snapshot'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it does not mutate external systems.
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 this tool is used after an audit history snapshot and before manual review, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds value by specifying the content (account-map path and validation state). However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the name imply.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all necessary information without any extraneous words. It efficiently states the purpose and key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations already present, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what information it returns. It specifies the two key pieces of status information (account-map path and validation state), making it complete for a status check 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?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% by default. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. No further improvement needed.
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 ('Show') and explicitly names the resource ('finance-reconcile-mcp setup status') with concrete details (account-map path, validation state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions (e.g., setup_suggest_account_map) or list other items (e.g., setup_list_simplefin_accounts).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool. The description implies it's for checking status, but there is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when to avoid it. The context of sibling tools suggests it's a safe read operation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidelines.
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?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds valuable context that it only affects local config and has no external side effects, going beyond the structured metadata.
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, each earning its place: purpose first, then behavioral scope. No waste, front-loaded.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers purpose and safety scope, but could mention what happens on missing id or success indication.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the single 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides, missing an opportunity to clarify it's the rule identifier.
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 'Remove' and the resource 'local category suggestion rule', distinguishing it from siblings like setup_add_category_rule.
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 explains that it only writes local config and never mutates external systems, providing clear context for safe local use, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.
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?
Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds specific return content (balances only, no transactions), which is valuable beyond 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 sentences, no waste. Front-loaded with action and purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a parameterless list tool with rich annotations. Specifies return data clearly. No output schema needed.
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, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as schema coverage is 100%.
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 action (list), resource (SimpleFIN accounts), and purpose (building account-map.json). Differentiates from sibling tool `setup_list_firefly_accounts` by 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for setup phase through purpose, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Sibling tools like `setup_validate_account_map` suggest a sequence, but the description doesn't guide selection.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context that it only reads local config and never mutates Firefly III or SimpleFIN, which aligns with and reinforces the annotations. No contradictions. It provides additional behavioral insight beyond what annotations offer.
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 two concise sentences. The first states the primary action, and the second clarifies its read-only nature. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or verbose phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and thorough annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description is fully complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and its side effects (none on external systems). No additional details are needed.
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 has zero parameters, so semantic coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate since there are none. Baseline is 4 for a parameterless tool.
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 lists locally ignored audit finding fingerprints. It distinguishes from sibling tools like setup_ignore_finding and setup_unignore_finding, which mutate state, by specifying it only reads. The verb 'list' and resource 'ignored audit finding fingerprints' are specific and 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 implies it's safe to call anytime because it only reads local config and never mutates external systems. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, the context from siblings suggests it's useful before mutating ignored findings. Could be improved by mentioning it's a precursor to ignore/unignore operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds context beyond annotations: it reads only local config and never mutates Firefly III or SimpleFIN. This aligns with readOnlyHint and reinforces the safe, nondestructive behavior.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's primary action. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides enough context: what it does (list), what it affects (local config only), and that it is read-only. No gaps.
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, so schema coverage is complete. Description does not need to add param info; it's sufficient that it states the function without requiring parameters.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists local category suggestion rules. Verb and resource are specific, and the read-only nature is explicitly mentioned, distinguishing it from mutation tools like setup_add_category_rule.
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?
Description implies usage for listing rules without mutation, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools that add or remove rules. However, the context of sibling names makes the distinction clear.
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:

[![finance-reconcile-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nalyDzzz/finance-reconcile-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nalyDzzz/finance-reconcile-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![finance-reconcile-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nalyDzzz/finance-reconcile-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nalyDzzz/finance-reconcile-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/nalyDzzz/finance-reconcile-mcp'

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