list_my_comparisonsComparisons the person saved (2 to 4 digital plans each), newest first, with the page address and, when the person chose to share one, its share link. Private unless shared: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | BCP 47 locale for human-readable strings, e.g. "en", "cs", "sk". Defaults to the country's default locale. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still earns credit by disclosing ordering (newest first), record shape (2–4 plans per comparison), which fields come back (page address, share link when shared), and the privacy rule (private unless `shared: true`). It omits pagination, result caps, and behavior on an empty account — notable given there is no output schema.
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?
A single dense sentence with zero filler: ordering, record shape, returned fields, and privacy rule all front-loaded before any elaboration. Every clause carries information the agent could not get from the schema or annotations.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly takes on describing returned content (page address, share link, ordering) and its access model (private unless shared). A read-only, single-optional-param listing tool is adequately covered; only pagination/result-count expectations and the empty-list case are missing.
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?
There is a single optional parameter (locale) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents format and default behavior. The description adds nothing about locale or how it affects the returned page address/share link. Baseline 3 is the correct ceiling here.
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?
States a specific resource with scope: comparisons saved by the signed-in person, itemized as 2–4 digital plans each and ordered newest first. An agent can tell this is a personal saved-items listing, but the description never differentiates it from the lookalike siblings (list_my_favorites, list_my_lists, list_my_price_watches, list_my_shops).
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?
Usage is only implied by the resource name — an agent infers 'use this to see saved comparisons'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to the sibling that covers favorites, lists, or price watches, so routing between the four list_my_* tools relies on the agent's own inference.
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.