Retrieve recent used-car search alerts for new matches, price drops, target price hits, rare manuals, and deal scores, each with a reason.
Recent alerts (new matches, price drops, target price, rare manuals, deal scores) with reasons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule | No | ||
| limit | No | Page size (max 200). | |
| since | No | 7d |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read operation but does not state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or that alerts are pre-computed/static. It also doesn't mention any rate limits or data freshness beyond 'recent'.
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?
The description is a single sentence that packs useful content (alert types, inclusion of reasons) without waste. The key information is front-loaded with 'Recent alerts'. It could be slightly more structured by adding a verb, but it is efficient.
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?
With an output schema present, return structure is covered, but the description leaves critical usage context missing: what 'rule' filters on, what 'since' accepts, and when this tool is the right choice among many alert-related siblings. For a 3-parameter tool with no annotation coverage and only one documented parameter, this is incomplete.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'limit' has a description). The tool description does not explain 'rule' or 'since' at all, leaving their formats and semantics undocumented in both the schema and the description. The phrase 'recent' weakly implies 'since' is a time filter, but that's not explicit and 'rule' remains opaque.
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 names the resource (alerts), the timeframe (recent), and enumerates content categories (new matches, price drops, target price, rare manuals, deal scores) plus that they include reasons. This is specific enough to distinguish from generic alert tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch' and doesn't contrast with siblings.
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?
No guidance is given on when to prefer get_alerts over alternatives like find_price_drops or get_listing_changes. The description only states what it returns, not the decision context that should route an agent to this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.