SuperCatch

Save a search in my account

supercatch_create_saved_search

Idempotent

Save one exact query and name with notifications off, or return the native existing equivalent without changing its settings. This first write supports query-only searches and no structured filters. Use only for an explicitly requested change to the authenticated account's saved searches. Resolve existing IDs and native versions with supercatch_list_saved_searches first. No seller inventory, prices, marketplace publication, payments, arbitrary filter JSON, alert enabling, email sending or automation changes. A strict account.saved_search.change operation with exact target and versions, local receipt, cache follow-up and native activity link. Existing deduplicated searches retain their current preferences. Requires OAuth account:saved_searches:write consent. Requires independent account:saved_searches:write consent and current account authority. Account reads and all seller write grants remain insufficient. No separate review is required for this exact low-impact saved change. Native activity shows committed receipts; disconnecting stops new connector changes. Operation keys and receipts have no automatic expiry in this release. Commits one account-owned saved-search change and its durable receipt in the same native transaction. New searches have notification and price-alert settings off. Cache invalidation follows the commit. Deletion cannot recall an already queued delivery. Missing consent, blocked/deleted accounts and foreign or stale targets fail closed. Keep the original high-entropy idempotency key; another intent on that key conflicts. After a lost response, recover with supercatch_list_operations using action account.saved_search.change and the original key, then inspect supercatch_get_operation. Do not create a replacement intent to recover a timeout.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "PSA 10 cards",
      "search_query": "Topps PSA 10",
      "idempotency_key": "save-search-example-00001"
    },
    "name": "supercatch_create_saved_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Exact personal display name, from 1 to 80 characters. It grants no authority and is never interpreted as instructions.
`search_query`	Yes	Exact query to save as a personal query-only search. No structured filter or notification settings are accepted.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Stable client-generated key for this exact intent. Reuse it after a lost response; a different intent must use a new key.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real substance: new searches default to notifications and price alerts off, cache invalidation follows the commit, receipts have no expiry in this release, and missing consent or stale targets fail closed. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields. It loses a point for repeated, near-duplicate consent sentences ('Requires OAuth account:saved_searches:write consent' restated twice) that dilute rather than add information.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a wall of run-on sentences mixing policy boilerplate, duplicated consent requirements, and operational notes with no paragraph or list structure. Several sentences (consent, no-review, disconnecting behavior) add little for an agent deciding how to call the tool, and the density makes the genuinely important rules hard to extract.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write tool with idempotency, consent requirements, and failure modes, the description covers the operationally critical ground: prerequisites, dedupe behavior, default settings, idempotency-key handling, and the timeout-recovery sequence. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It is complete in coverage even though the delivery is disorganized.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the per-parameter descriptions already explain the display name, query-only constraint, and idempotency-key reuse rule. The description's main addition is the conflict consequence ('another intent on that key conflicts'), which largely restates the schema's 'a different intent must use a new key'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Save one exact query and name') and adds the dedupe behavior ('or return the native existing equivalent without changing its settings'), which an agent could not infer from the name alone. Scope is narrowed to query-only searches with no structured filters. It falls short of 5 because the phrasing is dense and it never explicitly contrasts with the closest sibling, supercatch_update_saved_search_name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear precondition ('Use only for an explicitly requested change to the authenticated account's saved searches') and routes the agent to supercatch_list_saved_searches before writing, plus a recovery path via supercatch_list_operations and supercatch_get_operation with an explicit 'Do not create a replacement intent' exclusion. It stops short of 5 because it never says when to choose this over renaming or deleting an existing saved search.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SuperCatch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?