EyalSec MCP Server

Official

by EyalSec

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Saved searches

list_saved_searches

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an account's saved events-page searches for a product, returning Python or browser view output.

Instructions

The account's saved events-page searches for one product.

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": "list_saved_searches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	No	'python' (default) or 'browser'.	python

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no pagination, no auth/permission requirements, no note on how many searches are returned or what 'events-page' scope implies.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes from omitted information (scope, product meaning) rather than from tight writing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description leaves the agent without usage context, an explanation of the 'product' scoping, or any hint about the 'view' mode's effect on results. For a listing tool with an openWorldHint, that is a meaningful gap.

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% and the single 'view' parameter is self-documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameter and its 'one product' phrasing does not correspond to any input, so it neither helps nor fully compensates.

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

Purpose3/5

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

It names a concrete resource (the account's saved events-page searches), which an agent can distinguish from get_event or search_events. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and 'for one product' is vague since there is no product parameter and no indication of what the 'product' scoping means.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no relation to sibling tools like search_events or list_filters. It also fails to mention the 'view' parameter's default or that this is a per-account listing.

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