Skip to main content
Glama

InfinitePay MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_get_item_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the current status of a bank connection (UPDATED, UPDATING, LOGIN_ERROR, etc.), its executionStatus, connector metadata, and a reconnect_url that reopens the widget in UPDATE mode for that connection (re-authenticate / enter MFA token in place, without disconnecting and without consuming a connection slot). Omit item to get the status of ALL linked banks at once (returns { count, items }); pass item for a single bank.

Bulk support: accepts item_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemNo
item_idNo
item_idsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / item_id
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / item_ids
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  4. Added
  5. Removed
  6. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the reconnect_url behavior (reopening widget without disconnecting or consuming a slot) and bulk support. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description aligns with these.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is fairly concise, covering purpose, behavior, and parameter usage in two paragraphs. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating single vs. bulk), but overall it maintains clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns: status, executionStatus, connector metadata, reconnect_url, and for bulk a {count, items} structure. For a read-only status check, this is complete and sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explains omitting 'item' for all banks and passing 'item' for a single bank, and mentions item_ids for bulk. However, it does not clarify the semantic difference between 'item' and 'item_id' (both appear in schema), leaving ambiguity. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but has a gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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 status of a bank connection, including specific fields like UPDATED status, executionStatus, connector metadata, and reconnect_url. It distinguishes between single and all-bank queries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to omit or include the 'item' parameter for different use cases, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections, so some guidance on when not to use this tool is implied but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All InfinitePay MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources