PRO. All open matches (up to 100) for a saved profile: several keyword sets + regions, with values, deadlines and days left. Optional min_value filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Optional region, e.g. London, North West, Scotland | |
| profile | Yes | Keyword sets, e.g. ['cleaning','facilities management'] | |
| min_value | No | ||
| access_token | No | Subscriber token from /success (or Authorization: Bearer) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — the result is capped at 100 open matches — and flags the PRO tier, but says nothing about read-only behavior, what happens if more than 100 match (truncation vs. pagination), token/auth failure modes, or rate limits.
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?
A compact, front-loaded statement with the scope and the cap stated before the optional filter. The leading "PRO." token is cryptic but short; nearly every phrase carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully lists the return fields and the 100-item cap. It still leaves the agent without the meaning of the PRO requirement, behavior past 100 matches, and any alternative for paging or narrowing by date.
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 75%, with profile and region described in the schema. The description adds that min_value is an optional filter (schema gives no description for it), but does not state its unit or currency, and only loosely restates profile as "several keyword sets + regions".
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 gives a specific verb/resource ("All open matches... for a saved profile") plus the returned fields (values, deadlines, days left), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tender_match or closing_soon, so the agent must guess why there is both a match and a match_full.
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?
"PRO" and "for a saved profile" imply the premium/token-gated use case, and "Optional min_value filter" hints at narrowing results. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over tender_match, closing_soon or new_since, nor any stated prerequisites beyond the implied subscription.
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.