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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing the exact contents of the returned state, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions found.
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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then efficiently lists the returned data. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
This is a simple read-only informational tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully specifies what will be returned, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function or result, so nothing additional is needed.
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 description carries no parameter burden. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param information.
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 identifies a precise resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or openfinance_list_accounts.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool—whenever an agent needs an overview of installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, or tool counts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full 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.
The Open Finance tools have clear list/get pairs for each resource (accounts, transactions, loans, investments, bills), but the marketplace tool is a monolith combining search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, and prompt library actions, causing ambiguity about which action to use. Additionally, openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item overlap in purpose but are distinguished by scope.
The openfinance_* group follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (list, get, update, force_sync, etc.), but the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, show_version, report_bug, toolkit_info) use mixed bare verbs and nouns, creating two distinct conventions. Names like openfinance_list_transactions_by_item are longer but still consistent within the group.
25 tools is at the heavy end, but the Open Finance domain alone justifies 17 tools covering distinct resources and operations. The platform tools add 8 more, though the marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions into one, inflating the effective count. The number is borderline but not excessive given the breadth of banking functionality.
The Open Finance surface is comprehensive with list/get for every major resource, plus support for sync, status, search, categories, and category updates. The platform tools cover authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version, and toolkit state. No obvious gaps or dead ends in the workflow.