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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing the specific state information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is not present in the annotations. It does not cover edge cases or auth requirements, but for a read-only status tool this is sufficient.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's output without filler or repetition. Every phrase adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It gives an agent enough to understand what the tool returns, though the exact response structure is not specified, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description correctly makes no parameter claims. With no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing more the description could add in this dimension.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, or openfinance_provider_status.
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 implies this is the tool for checking overall toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like openfinance_provider_status or show_version. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so an agent gets only general context rather than clear selection 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.
Most open_-finance tools are clearly bound to a resource+action, but several pairs require careful reading: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, get_iate_status vs get_provider_status, and connect vs list_connections. The marketplace tool is also a single heavily overloaded tool that bundles search/describe/invoke/install and a prompt library, which blurs its boundary.
The Open Finance tools follow openfinance_verb_noun consistently, and the top-level tools are all snake_case, so there is no wild con convention mixing. Deviations exist in generic tools like marketplace/toolki_i/nfo and in non-verb patterns like accent_status, but overall the naming is readable and predictable.
At 25 tools the server sits at the upper edge of what is comfortably scoped; the many list/get/status endpoints are justified by the Open Finance domain, but the extra marketplace and admin utilities make it feel broader than a single-purpose sovereign. It is not abusive, but it is definitely on the heavy side.
The Open Finance access covers accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, investment, loans, connections, diagnostics, force-sync, and transaction recategorization. Missing operations are mostly intentional autentications/connection widget hand-offs (add_connection_url, reconnect_url), so the set can still support common workflows without dead ends.