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?
The description adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by detailing the return payload format: 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' when connected, and 'connect_url' when credentials are missing. It does not contradict annotations and provides helpful behavioral context.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core function, and the second elaborates on the two states. It is front-loaded and concise.
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 no output schema, the description completely explains the return values for both relevant states. It covers all necessary information for a zero-parameter, read-only tool.
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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter description is needed. The description does not add parameter details, but the baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, indicating adequate handling.
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 returns connection status and URLs, specifying the behavior under two distinct scenarios (all providers connected vs missing credentials). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'openfinance_list_connections', which focus on different actions or data.
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 but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'openfinance_list_connections' or 'openfinance_get_item_status'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, especially within the openfinance_* group, with detailed descriptions covering specific resources and actions. Minor overlap exists between list_transactions and list_transactions_by_item, and between get_credit_card_bill and list_credit_card_bills, but the descriptions clearly delineate their use cases (per-account vs whole-connection, detail vs summary).
The openfinance_* tools consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_accounts, get_item_status, update_transaction_category), with the exception of openfinance_provider_status which uses a noun phrase. Non-openfinance tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and report_bug are less uniform but still readable. Overall, the convention is mostly consistent.
At 25 tools, this is on the higher end but justified by the comprehensive Open Finance domain covering accounts, transactions, credit cards, loans, investments, connections, categories, and provider status. Each tool serves a specific operation, and the marketplace and platform utilities round out the surface. It's slightly heavy but not excessive.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for Open Finance data: listing and detailing accounts, retrieving balances, managing transactions (including categorization), handling credit card bills (list and detail with transactions), loans, investments, and connection health (sync, status, disconnect, search). Also includes authentication, marketplace, and utility tools. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.