carsearch-mcp

by Lironktf

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

list_saved_searches

List your saved car searches and their schedule status to review which monitored alerts are active.

Instructions

Saved (monitored) searches with schedule state.

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
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that saved searches have schedule state, without mentioning whether this is read-only, whether it returns all saved searches, authentication needs, pagination, or ordering. There is no contradiction, but the behavior is largely undisclosed.

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 extremely concise, with no filler words, and the key concept 'saved searches' is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though the brevity leaves some semantic gaps.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, in a sibling-rich context with no usage guidance and no annotations, an agent would still be uncertain about what exactly is listed and how schedule state is represented. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is fully adequate.

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 identifies the resource clearly ('saved searches') and adds a distinguishing feature ('schedule state'), so an agent can infer this is a listing operation. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' and does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as run_saved_search or delete_saved_search.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_alerts, run_saved_search, or create_saved_search. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving selection entirely to inference from the tool name.

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