Lists linked bank accounts and cards, optionally filtered by bank nickname, so you can view your UK Open Banking accounts across banks.
List accounts and cards. bank is a nickname; omit it to query all linked banks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bank | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this to be a safe, idempotent, read-only operation against an open world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that omitting the bank widens scope to every linked bank, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or empty results. With annotations carrying the heavy load, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the primary action stated first and the parameter clarification second. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.
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 single optional parameter tool with an output schema that documents return values, the description covers what the tool does and how the parameter's absence changes scope. The remaining gap is where an agent obtains valid bank nicknames, which likely requires the list_connections sibling that goes unmentioned.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema supplies only the name 'bank' with no meaning attached. The description compensates by defining bank as a nickname and by specifying the null/omitted case as a query across all linked banks, which is the key semantic the agent needs. It stops short of showing the nickname format or where such nicknames come from.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource set, 'List accounts and cards', which is enough for an agent to separate this tool from get_balance or list_transactions. It never names a sibling tool or states the boundary explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the resource rather than declared.
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 phrase 'omit it to query all linked banks' tells the agent the default behavior when the optional parameter is skipped, which is genuine usage guidance. It does not say when to prefer list_connections or list_pending, nor does it explain any prerequisite for having a linked bank.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.