Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| 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 the annotations by revealing exactly what the return payload includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It confirms a read-only, non-destructive operation without contradicting the annotations. It could go further by describing edge cases (e.g., empty state), but the provided detail is strong.
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, well-structured sentence fully describes the tool's purpose and output. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and immediately specifies the resource and scope.
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?
For a parameterless info tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains what the tool returns in enough detail for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It does not list specific fields or return types, but given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential context.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the schema covers everything (100% coverage with no properties). The description's focus on output is suitable for a parameterless tool.
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 the current toolkit state, listing specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools, which are all focused on specific OpenFinance operations or authentication/connectivity.
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 makes the tool's purpose obvious but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like openfinance_list_connections or openfinance_provider_status. It provides clear context for a general toolkit overview but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, with clear descriptions differentiating them. Some overlap between openfinance_list_accounts and openfinance_get_accounts_detail, but descriptions clarify that one returns summaries and the other full details. The marketplace tool is very detailed and avoids confusion with Open Finance tools.
The Open Finance tools follow a consistent openfinance_verb_noun pattern, but other tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) do not use a prefix. This mix of conventions reduces overall consistency, though within the Open Finance subset the pattern is clear.
24 tools is a reasonable count for a platform covering authentication, marketplace, and detailed Open Finance operations. The number is slightly high but each tool has a clear purpose and none seem redundant.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of bank connections: listing accounts, transactions, credit card bills, investments, loans, force syncing, provider status, and category management. The marketplace tool also allows extending functionality. No obvious gaps for the intended financial data domain.