List companies you are tracking
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Pagination cursor returned as meta.next_page | |
| limit | No | Maximum records to return |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / data / items / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -{}New value: +falseOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / notification_cadenceRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Notification cadence"
-}Output schema / properties / data / items / properties / sync_frequencyAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "How often the company is refreshed"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope 'you are tracking' but does not disclose any additional behavior such as pagination defaults or whether paused signals are excluded. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'List companies you are tracking' efficiently conveys the resource and filter without wasting tokens.
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?
For a read-only list with optional pagination, the description plus parameter schema and annotations are sufficient. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit pointer to sibling list tools, but the scope is clear. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described.
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?
Both parameters (page, limit) have schema descriptions that fully define them; the description adds no extra parameter meaning. With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the specific verb 'list' with a clear resource ('companies') and a scope qualifier ('you are tracking'), which makes it distinct from sibling tools like signals.track/untrack (mutations) and signals.list_applied_jobs (different resource). No ambiguity remains about the operation's intent.
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 the use case (viewing tracked companies) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as signals.recommendations.list or signals.list_applied_jobs. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving selection to inference from the name and scope.
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.