insourcia

list_watched_companies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Liste des societes surveillees par l'utilisateur dans ses listes de veille (page /lists de l'app Insourcia).

Utiliser cet outil :

AVANT watch_company, pour verifier si une societe est deja surveillee et connaitre les listes existantes (leur nom exact).
Pour repondre a "quelles societes je surveille ?" / "qu'y a-t-il dans ma liste X ?".

list_name (optionnel) restreint a une liste precise (nom exact). Sans list_name, toutes les listes de l'utilisateur sont retournees. Un list_name qui ne matche aucune liste renvoie companies: [] et total: 0 (ce n'est pas une erreur : simplement aucune societe surveillee sous ce nom).

Reponse : { companies: [{ siren, company_name, naf_code, region, list_id, list_name, added_at }] (aplaties toutes listes confondues, plus recentes d'abord), lists: [{ id, name, company_count, alert_enabled }], total, url (page /lists) }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`list_name`	No	Nom exact de la liste a consulter. Ex: "Surveillance", "Cibles M&A". Omis = toutes les listes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`lists`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`companies`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a non-matching list_name returns companies: [] and total: 0 (explicitly framed as not an error), results are flattened across lists and sorted most-recent-first, and list_name must be an exact name. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is longer than average but every section earns its place: purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics with edge case, and return format. It is well-structured with bullets and clear sections, though the inline response-shape explanation is slightly redundant given the output schema exists.

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?

Complexity is low (list tool with one optional filter), annotations carry the safety profile, and the description covers defaults, edge cases, sorting, and response shape — everything needed to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain, such as pagination behavior for very large result sets, but nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters; the baseline is 3. The description compensates by adding semantics beyond the schema: the default behavior when list_name is omitted (all lists returned) and the exact-match requirement including the empty-result contract. That pushes it above baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb+resource statement: "Liste des societes surveillees par l'utilisateur dans ses listes de veille" — listing watched companies in the user's watch lists, tied to page /lists. It distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with watch_company (the add operation) and unwatch_company, making the scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit usage scenarios: use BEFORE watch_company to check if a company is already watched and learn exact list names, and to answer "which companies do I watch?" / "what's in my list X?". It names the sibling tool (watch_company) as the linked alternative, leaving no inference required.

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

All insourcia tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct resource+action purposes, and the descriptions explicitly contrast near-neighbor tools like search_companies vs resolve_companies and get_events vs search_events. The only real risk is the trio of director-oriented tools, especially search_director_companies vs search_companies with dirigeant filters, which requires careful reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 18 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: search_, get_, list_, create_, watch_, unwatch_, mark_, resolve_. Singular names are used for single-entity actions and plural for list/search operations, making the pattern predictable. There is no camelCase, vague verb, or style mixing.

Tool Count4/5

18 tools is slightly above the ideal 10-15 range, but the count is justified by the broad domain covering search, company intelligence, watchlists, and news. Each tool appears to earn its place, and there are no obvious stubs or redundant duplicates. It feels a bit heavy but not bloated.

Completeness3/5

The company intelligence surface is very complete: search, deep company data, financials, directors, group graphs, events, and credit risk are all covered. Watchlists also have full add/remove/list coverage, but saved searches have a notable lifecycle gap—create and list exist, yet there is no update, delete, or alert-toggle for existing saved searches, creating a management dead end.

Resources

Need Help?