Lists your finn.no ads with current state and available actions, filters by ALL or DRAFT facets, and returns other facets in the response.
List the user's ads on finn.no ("Mine annonser") with state and available actions.
facet: ALL or DRAFT (confirmed); the response's `facets` lists the others.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| facet | No | ALL | |
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read/list operation, but it does not state authentication requirements, whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or any rate limits or side effects.
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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds useful facet context without unnecessary exposition. There is no wasted text.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need less explanation, but the description still omits authentication context, pagination semantics for limit/offset, and when to choose this tool over sibling listing tools. For a no-annotation tool with 0% schema description coverage, more contextual detail is needed.
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 0%, and only the facet parameter is explained in the description, with allowed values ALL and DRAFT. The limit and offset parameters are not described at all, leaving two of three parameters with no added semantic meaning.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: "List the user's ads on finn.no ('Mine annonser') with state and available actions." That is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool list_drafts, so it falls short of a 5.
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 mentions that facet may be ALL or DRAFT and that the response facets field lists others, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as list_drafts or search_finn. There are no when-not conditions or alternative routing instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.