saved_views_list
List saved views (named filters over contacts, companies, deals or tasks).
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityType | No | Only views for this record type. |
List saved views (named filters over contacts, companies, deals or tasks).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityType | No | Only views for this record type. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 fully covered. The description adds useful domain context by defining saved views as named filters, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or pagination.
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 efficient sentence with the resource and clarifying definition front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though the definition could be slightly more informative for the same length.
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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what an agent needs. No output schema exists, so 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single optional enum parameter that the schema fully documents. The description's enumeration of 'contacts, companies, deals or tasks' mirrors the enum rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb (List) and resource (saved views), and the parenthetical defines what a saved view is and which entity types they cover. It is clearly distinguishable from saved_views_create and saved_views_delete, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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: the agent can infer this is the read tool for saved views, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternative tools such as listing contacts or deals directly.
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.