finn-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a single listing, searching, and managing saved searches. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (get_listing, search_finn, save_search, etc.), consistently applied.
Tool Count5/5
6 tools is well-scoped for a finn.no interface, covering search, retrieval, and saved search lifecycle without bloat.
Completeness4/5
Core operations are present, but missing an update tool for saved search parameters and a way to list all results from a saved search (not just new ones). Minor gap.
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 17, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does 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.
Conciseness3/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters1/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides basic behavioral details: it deletes by name and returns True if it existed. However, it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, required permissions, or the behavior on invalid input. The mention of return value adds some transparency but is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences convey the purpose and a key behavioral detail with no unnecessary words. The description is front-loaded and efficient, earning its space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (context signal), the description covers the return value concisely. However, it lacks context about error handling, prerequisites, or relation to sibling tools like check_saved_search. It is adequate for a simple tool but has room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying that the tool operates 'by name', clarifying the parameter's role as the identifier of the saved search to delete. This compensates for the schema gap effectively for a single string parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb (Delete) and resource (saved search) with a specific identifier (by name). It distinguishes from siblings like save_search, list_saved_searches, and check_saved_search by describing a unique delete operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using check_saved_search first or handling non-existence. The description implies it can be used to delete a saved search, but does not provide context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool updates last_checked_at and last_finnkodes, which are side effects beyond the schema. It also explains the first-call behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences and a list of side effects. Every line serves a purpose, and the main verb 'Run' leads the text. No superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but known), the description adequately covers the behavior and side effects. However, it could explain the term 'last_finnkodes' and provide more context about the input format, but it remains sufficient for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'name' exists, and the description does not mention it at all. With schema coverage at 0%, the description should add meaning (e.g., what names are valid or how to construct them), but it fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: run a saved search and return new listings. It specifies the resource (saved search) and the unique behavior (only new results). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_finn or list_saved_searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that on the first call all results are new, implying subsequent calls yield only new changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_finn, nor does it list preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses caching for 24 hours, fallback probing of verticals, and cache hint behavior, offering solid transparency for a read-only tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two clearly separated paragraphs: one for purpose, one for behavior. Concise without excess, though could add bullet points for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers main behavior and caching. It omits return format but that's delegated to output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds value: it explains vertical's behavior when omitted (cache hint, probing). Finnkode is only named, but its role is obvious from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Fetch a full listing by its finnkode', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling search/save tools by focusing on single listing retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context implies use when a finnkode is known, but no explicit when-to-use/alternatives are given. Siblings like search_finn are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool returns all saved searches and orders them by name. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only listing operation, the description is adequately transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It could potentially mention that the output is a list or the ordering, but the output schema likely covers the return format. Overall, it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level meaning because none exist. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns every saved search in the local store, ordered by name. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('saved searches'), and differentiates from sibling tools like save_search, delete_saved_search, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_listing or search_finn. Usage is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or comparison guidelines are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return behavior (up to ~50 SearchResult entries, empty list valid), unsupported backend (cars_new), and extra URL-query parameters for filters. This is thorough for behavioral expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is extremely concise: two short paragraphs front-loading the purpose, then details on parameters and return behavior. No redundant sentences; every line adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (4 params, output schema), the description covers essentials: verticals, query, filters, return limits, and unsupported items. Missing page parameter explanation is minor, and output schema details are not needed since it exists separately. Adequate for informed use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning to vertical (expands enum with descriptions), query (free-text), and filters (dict example). However, it omits the 'page' parameter entirely. Thus partial coverage, baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search finn.no within a vertical', specifying the verb (search) and resource (finn.no within a vertical). It lists all vertical options (bap, homes, lettings, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools (get_listing, save_search, etc.) which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through naming and vertical specification, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'use for general search; use get_listing for a single item'). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![finn-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aHk-coder/finn-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aHk-coder/finn-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![finn-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aHk-coder/finn-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aHk-coder/finn-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aHk-coder/finn-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server