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?
The description discloses behavioral details beyond annotations: e.g., that config-based authentication yields a permanent connection, while token pasting is session-only. It does not contradict annotations; idempotentHint is consistent with repeated token calls.
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 well-structured with key information front-loaded. It is slightly verbose but every sentence serves a purpose in explaining the authentication workflow.
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?
The description covers all relevant aspects of the tool's behavior for a simple authentication tool. It lacks explicit mention of the return value on success, but the overall completeness is high given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.
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 schema only defines a single optional 'token' parameter with no description. The description explains that 'token' is a JWT access token and that omitting it returns a login link, adding essential semantic context.
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: authenticating users for IDE agents. It specifies three distinct modes of operation (config-based, session token, login link) and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated.
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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode: config for permanent, pasting token for session, or no args for login link. It also instructs the agent on how to call the tool in each case.
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 have clearly distinct resource-action pairs, but several pairs overlap enough to cause misselection: authenticate vs connect, openfinance_list_accounts vs openfinance_get_accounts_detail, and openfinance_list_credit_card_bills vs openfinance_get_credit_card_bill. The long descriptions help, but the monolithic marketplace tool also mixes many sub-actions that overlap with report_bug and connection management.
The openfinance_* tools mostly follow a consistent openfinance_<verb>_<noun> pattern, and the utility tools are all snake_case, but the conventions are mixed: marketplace is a bare noun, connect/authenticate are bare verbs, and openfinance_provider_status/toolkit_info lack a verb prefix. The pattern is readable but not uniform across the whole set.
At 25 tools, this sits at the top of the borderline-heavy range. The Open Finance domain justifies many of them, but the marketplace mega-tool plus several overlapping list/get variants make the set feel larger than necessary.
The surface covers the full Open Finance lifecycle well: connection search/status/sync/disconnect, accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, and category correction. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct payment/transfer initiation or single-transaction detail endpoint, but these are outside the apparent read/aggregate purpose and are workable around.