list_statementsBrowse your previously converted bank statements with pagination and optional status filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-100) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| status | No | Filter by status |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documents | Yes | ||
| pagination | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Max results (1-100)"Input schema / properties / offset / descriptionAdded value: +"Pagination offset"Input schema / properties / status / descriptionAdded value: +"Filter by status"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / properties / documents / items / properties / completedAtAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / documents / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "status",
- "filename",
- "pageCount",
- "createdAt"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "status",
+ "filename",
+ "pageCount",
+ "createdAt",
+ "completedAt"
+]Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionRemoved value: -"Max results (1-100)"Input schema / properties / offset / descriptionRemoved value: -"Pagination offset"Input schema / properties / status / descriptionRemoved value: -"Filter by status"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which match the 'Browse' behavior in the description. The description adds the useful scope that only previously converted statements are included, but does not disclose further behavioral details like ordering or auth requirements.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the verb, resource, scope, pagination, and optional filter with no unnecessary words. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
Given the annotations, complete parameter schema, and existing output schema, the description provides the essential usage context. It is slightly less explicit about when not to use this tool compared with alternatives, but nothing critical is missing for a read-only listing operation.
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 100%, so the parameters limit, offset, and status are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions pagination and an optional status filter, which aligns with the schema but adds no new parameter-level meaning.
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 action ('Browse'), the resource ('previously converted bank statements'), and the key options (pagination, status filter). It is distinct from sibling list tools like list_transactions and list_transfers because it is explicitly scoped to converted bank statements.
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 description gives clear context: use this tool to browse previously converted bank statements, optionally filtered by status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource scoping is enough to distinguish it from related list/get tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Core tools are cleanly separated by resource: statements, transactions, transfers, credits, and benchmark all have dedicated entry points. The five analytics tools (aggregate, group_by, compare, time_series, top_n) share metric/filter language, but their distinct output shapes and careful descriptions prevent major confusion, with only group_by vs. time_series/top_n occasionally overlapping.
Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern such as convert_statement, list_transactions, rate_statement, and dismiss_statement. The analytics tools (aggregate, compare, group_by, time_series, top_n) break that pattern, but they are still recognizable, consistently styled, and form a meaningful cluster.
At 16 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the server covers a broad workflow: upload, conversion, retrieval, categorization, analytics, transfer matching, rating, credits, and benchmarking. Each tool maps to a distinct capability, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.
The tool surface covers the full statement lifecycle from upload and conversion through retrieval, categorization, analysis, rating, and dismissal, plus useful side capabilities like credits and benchmark evaluation. Minor gaps exist—no permanent deletion and no way to manually edit category mappings—but dismiss_statement and categorize_statement provide adequate workarounds.