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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds context about state-dependent behavior: returns authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, or connect_urls when credentials are missing. This adds useful behavioral insight.
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 that convey the main purpose and key behaviors without waste. Front-loaded with the primary function.
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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned in both states, covering the essential information an agent needs to invoke and understand the output.
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, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4 (per guidelines). The description does not need to add parameter info, and it doesn't.
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 'Returns connection status and URLs' and explains behavior in two scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'openfinance_list_connections' by focusing on the overall authentication state rather than a list of connections.
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 when to use the tool (to check connection status), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No comparison with sibling tools provided.
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 tools have clearly distinct purposes within the openfinance_* namespace, but some close pairs exist: get_account_balance vs get_accounts_detail, list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, and get_item_status vs provider_status vs force_sync all require careful reading. The detailed descriptions resolve most ambiguity, but selection is not always instant.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_account_balance, update_transaction_category, force_sync). However, the generic platform tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info break the pattern, and provider_status is a noun phrase rather than verb_noun.
At exactly 25 tools, this sits at the heavy boundary. The Open Finance domain justifies many of them, but the set feels bloated because marketplace alone bundles a large number of sub-operations, and several platform utilities could arguably be consolidated.
The Open Finance surface is quite complete: connections, accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, investments, loans, categories, sync, status, and provider health are all covered. Minor gaps exist around direct connection creation (delegated to URLs) and single-item transaction detail, but agents can work around them.