MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about permanent vs. session login and token handling, which is consistent with annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with context, but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed. Still, it remains clear and 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?
While the description covers authentication flow well, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a success message or error). No output schema exists, so the description should ideally specify the return value for completeness.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% with no description on the 'token' parameter. The description compensates by explaining the token parameter's purpose (JWT access token) and the two usage modes, providing necessary semantic meaning.
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 handles authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents, specifying two methods: permanent token via config or session token via parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the dedicated auth tool.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to call with a token (session login) and when to call without args (to get login link). It also explains the permanent configuration approach, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools.
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.
Each openfinance tool targets a distinct resource/operation (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories, sync, status), and the non-openfinance tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are clearly separate. The only near-overlap is between openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, but the latter explicitly handles whole-connection consolidation and the descriptions clarify when to use each.
All openfinance tools share the `openfinance_` prefix with a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, update_, force_sync, provider_status, search_). Non-openfinance tools use simple imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) and the noun-phrase toolkit_info, all consistent in style with no mixed conventions.
25 tools is on the high side, but each serves a distinct function within the comprehensive Open Finance domain (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories, sync, status) plus general server utilities. The count is justified by the breadth of the domain, though it exceeds the typical 3-15 range.
The surface covers the full read lifecycle for financial data: listing and detail for accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, plus connection management (list, disconnect, force_sync), categories, and provider status. Missing write operations like transfers are likely out of scope, and minor gaps such as no separate 'get investment' detail are acceptable since list_investments returns comprehensive data.