Stores a named Finn.no search with query, vertical, and filters so you can monitor new results repeatedly via check_saved_search.
Persist a named search for repeated monitoring via check_saved_search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| filters | No | ||
| vertical | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| filters | No | ||
| vertical | Yes | ||
| last_finnkodes | No | ||
| last_checked_at | No |
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'persist', implying a write operation, but lacks details about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
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 very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with purpose but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context, making it underspecified.
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?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, 3 required, write operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least explain parameter roles. It does not, leaving significant gaps in understanding. The description is minimally adequate for a simple tool but insufficient for its actual complexity.
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 the description adds no information about any of the 4 parameters (name, query, filters, vertical). The schema provides types and enums, but the description fails to explain their meaning or usage, leaving the agent without guidance.
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 clearly states the tool persists a named search for repeated monitoring via check_saved_search. It uses specific verb 'persist' and resource 'named search', and distinguishes its purpose from siblings like list_saved_searches 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that this tool is for repeated monitoring via check_saved_search, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives beyond check_saved_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.