compass_get_saved_homesRetrieve your saved home favorites from Compass. Currently returns a clear error because the underlying GraphQL endpoint is not yet supported.
Not yet supported — Compass renders /overview/favorites via an auth-scoped GraphQL we have not yet identified. Throws a clear error explaining the limitation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.12.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds crucial runtime behavior: the tool throws a clear error explaining the limitation and identifies the root cause (auth-scoped GraphQL endpoint not identified). This helps an agent recover without wasting effort.
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 front-load the unsupported status and include only the necessary technical context and error behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 stub with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully communicates what an agent needs to know: expect no data, expect a clear error, and understand why. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing further to document.
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 immediately states 'Not yet supported' and names the specific underlying resource (/overview/favorites), making the intended function (retrieving saved favorites) and its stub status unmistakable. This distinguishes it from working siblings by clearly communicating that it will not return data.
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 description gives an explicit when-not-to-use signal: it is not yet supported and throws an error. It does not mention alternatives, but for a deliberately unsupported stub, the exclusion is clear and unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.