Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return format (authenticated, pending, connect_url) for different states, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or side effects.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and efficiently covers two key states without unnecessary words.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, safe operation, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains both success and missing-credentials scenarios, which is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters but adds value by describing the output behavior, which compensates for the absence of parameters.
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 states the tool returns connection status and URLs, and explains two scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'openfinance_list_connections', which could have overlapping purposes.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites or conditions under which this tool should be preferred over similar tools like 'openfinance_get_item_status' or 'openfinance_list_connections'.
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.
Most openfinance_* tools map cleanly to distinct resources and actions, and the list/get split is readable. The main risk is openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, which both return transactions and could be confused; openfinance_get_item_status vs openfinance_provider_status also sound similar, though descriptions clarify them.
The openfinance_* family follows a consistent openfinance_<verb>_<noun> pattern, and platform tools mostly use simple verb_noun names. Deviations include openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, which breaks the noun pattern, and the non-prefixed platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) mixing in a second naming category.
At 25 tools, this is at the high end of reasonable scope. The open finance data surface is genuinely broad, so most tools earn their place, but the marketplace/platform tools effectively add a second unrelated domain and push the set toward heavy.
The open finance lifecycle is well covered: connection search, sync, status, disconnect, accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, and category correction. Minor gaps exist (no single-transaction fetch, no connection update beyond force_sync), but core agent workflows do not hit dead ends.