MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
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 indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context: explains that calling with no args returns a link, and with token it authenticates. Mentions permanence of config vs. session, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with key purpose and usage. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
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?
Covers the two main use cases (permanent config and session token) and the no-args link generation. No output schema, but description implies the tool returns a link or authentication status. Adequate for a simple auth tool.
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 has one optional 'token' param with 0% coverage. Description explains it is a JWT token for session login, and no-args returns a link. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.
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 handles authentication for MCP AI, explaining two login methods (permanent config vs. session token). It distinguishes itself from unrelated siblings like 'connect' or 'report_bug' by its unique purpose.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and recommends the permanent config method. Advises calling with token for session login or no args to get the link. No mention of when not to use among siblings, but siblings are unrelated.
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.
The openfinance_* tools mostly target distinct resources, but several close pairs require careful reading: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, get_item_status vs provider_status, and list_accounts vs get_accounts_detail. The oversized marketplace tool also embeds sub-actions like report_bug and list_tools that overlap with standalone tools, making boundaries less crisp.
Names are predominantly lowercase snake_case with a strong openfinance_ prefix and clear verb_noun pairs such as list_accounts, get_account_balance, and update_transaction_category. A few platform-level tools break the pattern (marketplace, toolkit_info, authenticate, connect), but they are minor deviations and remain readable.
At 25 tools, this is on the heavy end, and the server mixes a detailed Open Finance data adapter with platform-management tools like marketplace, authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info. The breadth is defensible for the domain, but the set feels overloaded and could reasonably be split or consolidated.
The Open Finance surface is unusually thorough: connection lifecycle, accounts, balances, transactions, cash-flow analysis, credit-card bills, investments, loans, categories, and provider status are all covered. List tools feed detail tools cleanly, and reconnect or force-sync paths exist for every staleness or authentication dead end.