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 significant context beyond annotations, detailing return values and conditions (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url), fully disclosing behavior without 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?
The description is extremely concise, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence and adding necessary detail in the second, with no wasted words.
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?
While the description covers two main scenarios, it does not address partial connection states or provide a complete response structure, but is sufficient for a simple parameterless 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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%, so the description appropriately focuses on return behavior without needing parameter details.
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, and specifies behaviors for different states (all connected vs missing credentials), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 context on when to call based on connection state, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'authenticate' or state when not to use it.
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.