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?
The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the return values in different states (authenticated vs missing credentials). Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with specific behavior.
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, well-structured, no fluff. Every sentence adds meaningful information about the tool's output in different conditions.
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?
The description covers two main states (all connected vs missing credentials) but does not mention other possible states like partial connections. However, for a status tool, it is fairly complete and useful.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description naturally doesn't need to add parameter info, and with 0 parameters, baseline is 4.
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, distinguishing it from siblings like authenticate (which does authentication) and openfinance_list_connections (which lists connections). The verb 'returns' and resource 'connection status and URLs' are specific.
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 implicitly tells when to use: to check connection status, especially when all providers connected or credentials missing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like authenticate for performing authentication.
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.