intempus_search_capabilitiesSearch Visma Intempus MCP capabilities and examples to decide which tool to call. Use it first to find the right tool for time, balance, case, or planning tasks.
Search the Intempus MCP server capabilities and examples. Use this first when deciding which tool to call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that examples are included, saying nothing about result size, ranking, or how to follow up on matches.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler: what it does first, when to use it second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
For a zero-required-parameter search tool with no output schema, an agent can call it correctly, but it cannot predict what comes back or how to constrain the search via query/limit. Combined with 0% param coverage, the definition is serviceable but leaves real gaps.
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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It never explains that 'query' is a free-text search string (e.g., empty returns everything) or that 'limit' caps results with a default of 20 and a max of 50, leaving both params undocumented.
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 (search) and resource (Intempus MCP server capabilities and examples), and its meta/discovery nature clearly distinguishes it from the ten sibling work-report/account tools. 'Capabilities and examples' is slightly abstract, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
'Use this first when deciding which tool to call' gives an explicit, actionable usage condition that no sibling would satisfy. It doesn't enumerate exclusions or post-discovery behavior, but for a discovery entry-point that is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.