Revly

Finn oppdrag i tilkoblet firma

finn_oppdrag

Read-onlyIdempotent

Søker etter klientnavn, organisasjonsnummer eller år i firmaet tilkoblingen gjelder. Uten søkeord listes firmaets aktive oppdrag. Hvert treff viser hvor mange forespørsler som venter på klienten og siden når, og lovfristene Revly utleder for revisjonsoppdrag. En frist uten grunnlag står som ukjent, aldri som en gjettet dato. Gir høyst åtte treff.

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": "finn_oppdrag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sok`	No	Klientnavn, organisasjonsnummer eller fire-sifret oppdragsår. Utelat for å liste aktive oppdrag.
`grense`	No	Maksimalt antall treff, fra 1 til 8.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of matches requested, from 1 to 8.
`status`	Yes	matches, no_matches or truncated when more rows exist than the limit.
`matches`	No	Matching engagements, newest year first.
`truncated`	No	True when more matches exist than the limit.
`operation_id`	Yes	Revly operation ID for this read, recorded in the access log.
`result_count`	No	Number of matches returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds value beyond the safety profile. It discloses useful behavior: the result shows a count of waiting requests and since when, the statutory deadlines Revly derives, and the rule that a deadline without basis is marked unknown rather than guessed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the search modes and the default listing behavior come first, and the output details follow. The sentence about unknown deadlines is slightly explanatory but is justified because it clarifies a non-obvious behavior.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description is complete for a search/list tool with rich annotations and an output schema: the input modes are clear, and the output schema can carry return structure. The description notes the maximum number of hits and what a hit contains, so an agent can call the tool correctly without guessing.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The description restates the search fields (client name, org number, year) and the maximum of eight hits, which match 'sok' and 'grense' exactly; therefore, the description 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 gives a specific verb ('Søker') and resource ('oppdrag'), and it is clear that this is a search/list tool. It also explains what each hit contains. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'hent_*' detail-fetchers, so the distinction relies on inference.

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?

The description states upfront that omitting search terms lists the company's active assignments, which is the main usage decision for a zero-required-parameter tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions against siblings, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All Revly 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?