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 show idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description adds context that token in header is non-expiring and that session-time token is temporary. No contradiction.
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?
Description is front-loaded with purpose and concise, though slightly long due to multiple instructions. Every sentence adds value, with minimal 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?
With no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers all needed context: link generation, token usage, and permanent vs session setup, making it fully complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains the 'token' parameter as an optional JWT for session login. It adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.
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 states the verb 'authenticate' and clearly identifies the resource as a session or token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on authentication steps.
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?
Explicitly provides two usage paths: permanent config via header or session login via token parameter. Also instructs calling with no args to get the link, covering when and how to use each option.
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 tool targets a distinct operation or data type (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, etc.) with no ambiguity. Even closely related tools like openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item are clearly differentiated by scope and output format.
The majority of tools follow the 'openfinance_' prefix for banking operations, but utility tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break this pattern, creating an inconsistent mix. However, the convention is still readable and the utilities are clearly distinct.
25 tools is on the high side but well-justified by the breadth of Open Finance data types (accounts, transactions, credit cards, bills, loans, investments) and supporting operations (sync, status, search, updates). A few tools could potentially be merged, but overall the number is reasonable for the domain.
The tool surface covers the core Open Finance workflows: listing, reading details, syncing, updating categories, and checking provider status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to create or delete accounts/transactions), but these are external constraints. The set enables most user-facing financial queries and actions.