Execute a saved search, capture a snapshot, and compare it against the prior successful sample to automate repeated research checks without creating a background schedule.
Run a saved search once, save a snapshot, and compare it with its previous successful sample. Repeated calls provide research automation; no background schedule is created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful side-effect context: it saves a snapshot and compares it. It also clarifies that repeated calls are safe for research automation and that no background schedule persists. It does not cover edge cases like what happens when no previous successful sample exists, but with annotations present this is adequate.
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 sentences, each earning its place: the first covers run/snapshot/compare behavior, the second covers repetition and scheduling. It is compact, front-loaded, and contains no filler.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, side effects, and scheduling clearly. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the caller receives back, whether the operation is synchronous, or what happens when there is no previous successful sample. Those are meaningful gaps for an agent that needs to invoke this tool and use its result.
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?
The only parameter, 'name', has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explicitly maps 'name' to the saved search identifier. However, 'Run a saved search' strongly implies that the required parameter is the name of the saved search to execute, so the core semantics are inferable. More explicit parameter-level guidance would have been better given the low schema coverage.
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 states a specific action ('Run') on a concrete resource ('saved search') and adds exact side effects: saving a snapshot and comparing it with a previous successful sample. It also explicitly excludes background scheduling, which helps distinguish it from recurring automation tools. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like x_saved_search_save and x_snapshot_compare.
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?
The description gives clear context for usage: run once, then repeat calls to automate research, and no background schedule is created. This is an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use signal. It does not name alternative sibling tools or direct the agent to a different tool for scheduled runs, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.