list_savings_goalsRetrieve savings goals and their total saved, target, and percentage for a Starling Bank account.
Lists savings goals (savings spaces) with total saved, target and percentage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountUid | No | Account UID. Optional: defaults to STARLING_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT_UID, the only account, or the PRIMARY account |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field summary (total saved, target, percentage), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or failure modes.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the key fields returned. The tool is simple (one optional param), so little else is strictly needed, though the absence of any guidance on result shape beyond three fields or on routing to siblings is a minor gap.
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 100% and the only parameter (accountUid) is fully documented in the schema, including its default resolution order. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('savings goals'), and usefully clarifies the synonym 'savings spaces'. It also names the returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular get_savings_goal or from list_spaces, 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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_savings_goal or list_spaces, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The plural name loosely implies 'list all', but the description supplies no actual routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.