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, which aligns with the description's mention of non-destructive authentication. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the two operational modes (permanent vs session) and that calling without args returns a login link. No contradictions, but could mention security considerations.
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, with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently provides alternative usage instructions. Every sentence earns its place.
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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers both intended workflows (config-based and session-based) and the expected inputs/outputs, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining what the 'token' parameter expects (a JWT string) and the behavior when omitted (returns login link). It adds essential 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: handling authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents. It specifies two distinct methods (config-based permanent token or session-based token paste) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., connect, marketplace) by focusing exclusively on authentication.
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 provides clear guidance on when to use each method: best practice (config for permanent) vs session-only (paste token). It also explains how to call the tool (with token or without) to get the link. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, though siblings are sufficiently distinct.
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 openfinance_* tools target clearly distinct resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories). Minor overlap exists—list_accounts returns balances and list_transactions_by_item consolidates what list_transactions provides—but the detailed descriptions distinguish them adequately.
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, update_*, force_sync, search_*) with one slight deviation: openfinance_provider_status omits a verb. The non-openfinance platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) break the prefix pattern, creating two naming conventions within the same server.
25 tools sits at the upper boundary of acceptable for a comprehensive Open Finance banking adapter, covering accounts, transactions, credit cards, loans, investments, and connection management. However, including meta-platform tools like marketplace and toolkit_info inflates the count and makes the set feel heavier than a pure banking tool surface.
The tool surface covers the core Open Finance lifecycle well: list/get accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, connection management, category correction, and provider status. Gaps include no direct new-bank connection tool (only URLs) and no investment detail endpoint beyond transactions, but agents can work around these.