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 already declare readOnlyHint true and idempotentHint true, confirming safe read operation. Description adds behavioral context about response in two states (all connected vs missing credentials), which is helpful but not extensive.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value and the structure is efficient.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple behavior, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior in the two main scenarios. No significant gaps remain.
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; schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Description provides no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific scenarios for when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. It differentiates from sibling authenticate tool by focusing on status rather than performing authentication.
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?
Description implies use for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings like authenticate or openfinance_list_connections. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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_* cluster maps cleanly to distinct resources/actions and the descriptions sharply separate lookalikes like openfinance_get_item_status vs openfinance_provider_status. A few boundaries are fuzzy: openfinance_list_transactions_by_item overlaps with openfinance_list_transactions, marketplace also exposes report_bug alongside the standalone report_bug tool, and get_account_balance/list_accounts both return balances.
The 20 finance tools consistently follow openfinance_<verb>_<noun> (list_accounts, get_credit_card_bill, force_sync, update_transaction_category), which is the dominant pattern. The five platform tools break it with bare verbs and nouns (connect, marketplace, toolkit_info, show_version), creating a clear but minor namespace split.
25 tools is at the heavy end of the typical range, but the server covers two substantial domains (Open Finance data and an MCP marketplace/platform), so most tools earn their place. There is little redundant surface; the only mild overreach is marketplace smuggling many sub-operations into one tool.
The Open Finance surface is remarkably complete: accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, categories, connection health, force sync, connector search, and disconnect. Minor gaps remain, such as no direct programmatic bank-connection creation tool (URLs are returned instead) and no singular transaction/get-investment-detail endpoint, but agents can work around these.