Lists saved searches classified as reports, not alerts. Filter by app, owner, or name to find specific report definitions.
List saved searches classified as reports (not alerts) that you can see. Filter by app/owner/name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | No | App namespace. Omit for all. | |
| count | No | Max results (default 50, max 200). | |
| owner | No | Owner username. Omit for all. | |
| query | No | Case-insensitive substring match on name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a read-style operation, that visibility is scoped to the caller ('that you can see'), and that filtering is optional. It does not discuss ordering or response shape, but it does clarify the tool's main behavioral boundaries.
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?
Every clause earns its place: the object, the scope qualifier, the exclusion of alerts, and a one-line pointer to filters. No fluff, examples, or repetition.
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?
Coverage is strong given the tool's simplicity: the operation, object type, visibility scope, and filter dimensions are all present. The schema fills in count/query semantics impossibly. Missing only a hint about output shape/ordering, which is minor for a list endpoint.
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 coverage is 100%; the description restates filter dimensions but adds little beyond the schema. It does clarify that 'name' relates to the query param, but the schema's 'Case-insensitive substring match' and count defaults already carry most of the semantic load.
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 first sentence names the operation ('List'), the object ('saved searches classified as reports'), and the scope ('that you can see'). The parenthetical '(not alerts)' immediately disambiguates it from a closely related category, so an agent can identify purpose without guessing.
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?
It gives clear context for when to use the tool: to list report-type saved searches, not alertschers. The filter phrase tells an agent which selection capabilities exist. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools (e.g., list_alerts vs list_reports), so it does not get full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.