saved_view_get_default_saved_viewGetDefaultSavedView returns the calling user's pinned default view for a datatable (empty when none is pinned)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. | |
| datatableCode | Yes | Lowercase kebab-case code identifier. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| savedViewId | No | UUID value wrapper. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns the 'calling user's' pinned view and explicitly notes 'empty when none is pinned', which clarifies the empty-result behavior beyond what annotations convey.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It includes only essential information (pinned default, calling user, empty-when-none) and adds no filler or redundant repetition of the title.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity, strong annotations, 100% parameter coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the key behavioral nuance (empty when none pinned) and does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described (companyId as UUID value wrapper, datatableCode as lowercase kebab-case). The description does not add parameter-level semantics, but the schema fully handles this, so the baseline score 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 a specific verb ('returns') and identifies the exact resource: the calling user's pinned default view for a datatable. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like saved_view_get_saved_view and saved_view_get_list_saved_views by emphasizing 'default' and 'pinned'.
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 usage: when you need the calling user's pinned default view for a datatable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of the sibling saved_view tools or provide exclusions, so guidance is implied but not fully articulated.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.