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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the exact response shape in two scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url when credentials are missing), which is more specific than the annotations alone.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides concrete behavior. It is appropriately sized for a simple status tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description fully covers the necessary context: what the tool returns and under what conditions. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 schema provides complete coverage (100% by default). Per the rubric, a 0-param tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details and does not.
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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It provides specific behavior for different states (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate that would initiate authentication rather than report status.
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 usage for checking connection status and URLs, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like authenticate or openfinance_list_connections. It gives clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.
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 openfinance_* family is largely well-differentiated by resource and action, but the monolithic `marketplace` tool bundles search, invoke, install, billing, and prompt-library actions into one name, creating ambiguity about where platform capabilities live. Additionally, `openfinance_list_transactions` and `openfinance_list_transactions_by_item` both return transaction data and could be misselected despite their different aggregation intent.
The openfinance_* tools consistently follow a clear verb_noun pattern, which gives the majority of the surface a predictable shape. But the generic platform tools mix bare verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), nouns (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), and verb_noun names (`report_bug`, `show_version`), so the server has two naming dialects rather than one uniform convention.
At 25 tools, this sits right at the top of the heavy range, and the server genuinely spans two broad domains: MCP platform administration and Open Finance banking data. The count is defensible given the breadth, but it is not a lean or easily navigable surface for an agent.
The Open Finance side is quite complete, covering connections, accounts, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, categories, provider status, sync, and disconnection. The platform side covers authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, and versioning, though some marketplace sub-actions are packed into one tool and bank connection itself is only reachable through URLs returned by other tools.