Find your submitted reports by text, program, status, severity, reward, or date range to review and track their progress.
Recherche les rapports du hunter connecté par texte, programme, statut, criticité, récompense et période.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| rewarded | No | ||
| statuses | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| severities | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| program_slugs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds that results are scoped to the connected hunter and enumerates filters, but it does not disclose pagination, result shape, or ordering.
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?
One efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the supported filter dimensions. There is no filler or repetition of schema constraints.
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?
The definition is adequate for a read-only search call: scope and main filters are present, and annotations handle side effects. It lacks explicit guidance on result format, pagination behavior, and sibling differentiation, which would make it fully self-contained.
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%, so the prose must carry the semantic load; it maps most parameters to everyday categories: text, program, status, criticality, reward, and date range. It leaves page/page_size implicit, but the schema's names and defaults make those unambiguous.
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 uses a specific verb ('Recherche') and resource ('rapports du hunter connecté'), and lists concrete filter dimensions. It is clear about what it does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_my_reports or get_my_report.
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 filtering language implies this is the tool to use when searching reports by text, program, status, severity, reward, or date. However, it never states when not to use it or names a preferred alternative for unfiltered listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.