The user's saved searches and whether their Telegram is linked. Needs the personal token, like save_search.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_saved_searches"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses the auth requirement (personal token) and the returned content (saved searches + Telegram link flag), but says nothing about side effects, volume/limits, or failure behavior; the read-only nature is only inferred from the phrasing.
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?
Two tight sentences with the key content front-loaded and the auth caveat second. Nothing is wasted, though the 'like save_search' cross-reference is a bit cryptic without context.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and the auth prerequisite. Only minor gaps remain, such as the shape or ordering of the returned saved searches.
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?
Zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly beyond by noting the personal token requirement, clarifying that authentication is out-of-band rather than a schema field.
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 names the resource and content precisely: the user's saved searches plus whether Telegram is linked. The list/retrieve verb is only implied by the name, but the noun phrase makes the operation unambiguous. It references save_search, though only for auth pattern rather than functional differentiation.
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 — an agent infers it should call this when it needs the user's stored searches or Telegram link status. The one concrete guideline is the auth precondition ('needs the personal token, like save_search'), with no when-not cases or explicit alternatives among the siblings.
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.