list_my_saved_searchesList the authenticated user's saved searches, including their filters and alert schedule. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the operation requires authentication and includes details about the response (filters and alert schedule), providing additional behavioral context beyond annotations.
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, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded: 'List the authenticated user's saved searches' immediately conveys the action.
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 no parameters and annotations covering read-only, the description is complete for a list tool. It could mention pagination or ordering, but the core functionality is well-covered.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying that the output includes filters and alert schedule, compensating for no output schema.
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 clearly states the tool lists the authenticated user's saved searches, including filters and alert schedule. It uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'saved searches', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'save_search' (create) and 'delete_saved_search' (delete).
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 mentions requires authentication, a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the context is clear.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing CRUD, attachment upload workflow, search with interpret, geocoding, saved searches, and registry retrieval. No two tools overlap significantly; even the upload-related tools (sign, confirm, attach) are sequential and distinct.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_listing, get_registry, search_listings). The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.
With 15 tools, the server covers the core functionalities of a commercial real estate listing system without being bloated. Each tool serves a necessary role, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set is missing critical lifecycle operations: there is no way to delete or archive a listing, nor any tool to publish/unpublish a listing. This leaves an obvious gap in the basic CRUD workflow, which will cause agent failures when users need to remove or finalize listings.