Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Open Finance US MCP

Open Finance US MCP

by orancummins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

create_testing_customer

Create a non-billable sandbox testing customer for Finicity open banking operations. Use this to develop and test integrations.

Instructions

Create a Finicity testing customer (sandbox, non-billable).

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": {
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "create_testing_customer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when the upstream HTTP status was < 400.
dataNoFinicity's native response body.
errorNoError summary when ok is False.
status_codeYesUpstream Finicity HTTP status code.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses it's non-billable and for sandbox, but lacks details on required permissions, idempotency, uniqueness constraints, or side effects. Basic behavioral context is present but shallow.

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?

Extremely concise at 9 words, front-loaded with purpose. However, it sacrifices completeness—missing parameter info makes it less useful. Appropriate size but not well-rounded.

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?

With one simple parameter and an output schema, the description should cover the parameter meaning. It fails to do so. The purpose is clear but the agent lacks critical information to construct the 'username' argument 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. However, it does not explain the 'username' parameter at all, leaving its meaning entirely to the schema (which has no description). The description adds no value for parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it creates a testing customer for sandbox, non-billable. The verb 'create' and resource 'testing customer' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling 'create_active_customer' by explicitly noting it's for testing.

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?

Implies use for sandbox/testing scenarios, not production. The sibling 'create_active_customer' provides a clear alternative, but no explicit when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools