consent_statusCheck connected banks, remaining consent days, and incomplete bank logins to manage account access.
Which banks are connected, how many days each consent has left, and any bank logins that were started but not finished.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output categories, including the non-obvious 'started but not finished' logins, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or whether it refreshes consent data from the banks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the central question and packs three distinct output facets without waste or repetition. Every clause carries meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description explains the return content in enough detail to call correctly. It is missing only an explicit read-only statement or a pointer to sibling list_banks for distinguishing available vs connected banks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage, so the description has no parameter documentation burden to carry. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a status/read operation and enumerates what it reports: connected banks, consent days remaining, and incomplete bank logins. This content is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_banks or get_balances, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: use when you need consent expiry information or unfinished login flows. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_banks or check_watches, and no when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.