Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data. The bank's data will no longer be available. Returns an add_connection_url to re-connect if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
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 behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it revokes consent, deletes data, makes data unavailable, and returns a reconnection URL. This effectively communicates the outcome.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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 the destructive action and reconnection possibility, it is incomplete because it fails to document the parameter's meaning. Given the simple input schema, this is a notable gap.
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 parameter 'item' is required but has no description in the schema or the tool description. The description mentions 'specific bank' but does not explain how 'item' identifies the bank, leaving the agent without necessary semantic information.
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 uses specific verbs 'revokes' and 'deletes' to clearly state the action: revoking Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deleting connection data. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like listing connections or getting 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 when to use (when disconnecting a bank) but does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites. It mentions a reconnection URL but lacks context like 'use this when you want to permanently remove a bank connection'.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The Open Finance tools are granular (e.g., list vs get vs force_sync for different resources), and the marketplace, authentication, and utility tools do not overlap. No two tools could be easily confused.
The Open Finance tools consistently use the 'openfinance_' prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_accounts, get_balance). Other tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) use simple verb names, which is a minor deviation but still clear and predictable.
25 tools is on the higher end, but the server covers a broad domain (marketplace + comprehensive Open Finance operations). Each tool serves a specific function, and the count is justified by the depth of functionality.
The toolset provides full lifecycle coverage for the Open Finance domain: list, get, sync, update, transactions, categories, investments, loans, credit cards, and connections. The marketplace tool is also feature-rich. No obvious gaps for the intended purpose.