Gemral Edge

Search Management Promises

search_management_promises

Search quantifiable management commitments by company ticker, claim category/taxonomy, or realization status. Returns verifiable quotes, deadline windows, targets, and source regulatory filing / investor-relations document citations.

Tool call template

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": "search_management_promises"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of claims to return
`status`	No	Realization status
`ticker`	No	Stock ticker symbol, e.g. NVDA or TSLA
`promise_type`	No	Category or taxonomy code, e.g. FIN-REV, OPS-RAMP, PROD-LAUNCH, TECH-AI-CLUSTER

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notice`	No	Free-tier upgrade notice; only when results are masked/delayed.
`results`	Yes	Tool result payload (read-only evidence). Shape varies by tool; scoring weights are never exposed.
`history_limit`	No	Present when the license limits history depth: earliest_allowed date, history_days and how many older items were removed.
`deprecated_fields`	No	Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / deprecated_fields

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The tool is described as a search operation that returns quotes and citations, which implies a read-only lookup. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, creating a direct inconsistency about whether the tool may modify state. The description does not clarify this contradiction or disclose any additional mutation behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two tightly written sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core search purpose and then summarizes the returned data, making it easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail, and it still summarizes the key returned fields. The full parameter schema and default limit are covered by structured data, though the description does not address the readOnlyHint inconsistency or sibling-tool routing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the meaning of ticker, promise_type as claim category/taxonomy, and status as realization status, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: search quantifiable management commitments. It also names the primary filters and return contents, making the tool's scope clear. However, it does not distinguish the tool from close siblings such as get_open_promises, get_overdue_promises, or get_claim_history.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by listing the supported search dimensions: ticker, claim category/taxonomy, and realization status. It does not explicitly state when this search tool should be used instead of sibling tools like get_open_promises or verify_claim.

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

All Gemral Edge 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.