kite-connect-mcp

Holdings

get_holdings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve long-term equity holdings from a Zerodha Kite demat account with invested value, current value, P&L, day change, per-symbol details, and summary totals; optionally filter by tradingsymbol.

Instructions

Long-term equity holdings in the demat account, by tradingsymbol, with a summary over ALL the holdings that match (not just the page), in INR: invested (average_price x shares), current_value (last_price x shares), pnl (the sum of Kite's pnl) and its percentage, day_change (against the previous close) and its percentage. The shares of a holding are quantity (settled, T+2) plus t1_quantity (bought, not yet delivered). Each holding has tradingsymbol, exchange, isin, product, quantity, t1_quantity, used_quantity, authorised_quantity (for sale at the depository), collateral_quantity, average_price, last_price, close_price, pnl, day_change (per share) and day_change_percentage.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_holdings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`tradingsymbol`	No	only holdings of this tradingsymbol, e.g. INFY

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add one genuinely valuable behavioral fact — that `summary` aggregates over ALL matching holdings rather than just the current page — plus the semantics of `quantity` (settled T+2 plus t1_quantity). It says nothing about ordering, rate limits, or what an empty account returns.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the second half degenerates into a long comma-separated field roster inside one run-on paragraph. The field list earns its place somewhat because there is no output schema, yet the density reduces scannability.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned fields, the derived summary metrics (invested, current_value, pnl, day_change) and their formulas is a real contribution. Remaining gaps are pagination mechanics for limit/offset and any indication of ordering or error states, which are moderate rather than critical for a read-only list tool.

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 33%: only `tradingsymbol` is documented in the schema, while `limit` and `offset` have bare types with defaults and no explanation. The description indirectly informs pagination semantics by stressing that the summary spans all matches, not the page, but never explains what limit/offset do to the returned list, ordering, or the 500 cap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Long-term equity holdings in the demat account, by tradingsymbol', and enumerates the returned fields. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_positions (holdings vs positions) and get_mf_holdings (equity vs mutual fund) through the word 'equity', but never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. demat/authorisation state) and no routing to alternatives such as get_mf_holdings, get_positions, or authorise_holdings for the 'authorised_quantity' concept. The agent must infer usage entirely from the scope sentence.

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