Search transactions by description. Use when user asks about specific vendors, expenses, or payments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 10) | |
| query | Yes | Text to search for in transaction descriptions | |
| companyId | Yes | FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or the format of results (e.g., pagination, default limit of 10). Only the schema indicates the limit parameter with default 10, but the description adds no behavioral context.
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 two sentences, highly concise, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool is simple with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description, combined with schema, covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks details on search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, exact match vs. partial), what the response contains, and any constraints. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for the agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the query parameter is implied by 'by description', but limit and companyId are not elaborated. It does not compensate for or enrich the schema descriptions.
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?
Description states 'Search transactions by description' which is a clear verb+resource. It also provides typical use cases: 'Use when user asks about specific vendors, expenses, or payments.' However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_transactions' or 'list_xero_bank_transactions', which may have overlapping functionality.
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 gives context on when to use the tool ('Use when user asks about specific vendors, expenses, or payments'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or identify alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that 'get_transactions' might be better for listing all transactions without a text filter.
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.
The tool set is heavily disambiguated by detailed routing descriptions, domain prefixes, and lifecycle verbs, so most tools have a clear intended purpose. However, at 297 tools there are still close pairs and overlapping decision surfaces (e.g., approval workflows, 'what should I work on' readers, multiple finance/ads readers) that require careful description reading to avoid misselection.
Naming is predominantly consistent snake_case verb_noun with strong domain prefixes like shopify_, x_, posthog_, and list_/create_/update_ patterns. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as several collection-returning tools using get_ (get_team_members, get_icps, get_okrs) instead of list_, and some generate_ vs create_ vs draft_ verbs, but the pattern is still predictable overall.
297 tools is an extreme outlier and far beyond a usable MCP tool surface. Even a large suite has no justification for this count in one server; the agent would struggle to select among hundreds of similarly descriptive tools, and the natural 3-15 tool range is exceeded by nearly 20x.
The individual domains represented — OKRs, CRM/leads, Shopify, content pipelines, ads, PostHog, team hiring, knowledge, finance, and session management — are covered remarkably well with full lifecycle patterns. Minor gaps exist, such as no full deal CRUD, no delete for several Google/Shopify artifacts, and some analytical surfaces being read-heavy, but most workflows can be completed without dead ends.