compass_get_saved_searchesRetrieve saved searches from Compass. Throws a clear error explaining that this feature is unsupported due to an unrecognized auth-scoped GraphQL.
Not yet supported — Compass renders saved searches 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?
While annotations already disclose readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior, the description adds crucial runtime behavior: the tool is not implemented and will throw a clear error explaining the limitation. It also explains why (auth-scoped GraphQL not identified), giving the agent useful context beyond the structured annotations.
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?
The entire description is one compact sentence plus an explanatory clause. It front-loads the most important fact ('Not yet supported') and provides the necessary detail in two short segments, with no filler.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: it is unsupported, why, and what happens if called. A slight gap is the absence of any pointer to an alternative, but given the low complexity and informative annotations, this is adequate.
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, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter semantics to document, and the description does not need to add anything beyond the empty schema.
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 and title make clear the tool concerns the agent's saved Compass searches, and the first phrase 'Not yet supported' immediately conveys the tool's current status. It does not explicitly state the action verb 'get', but the resource is unambiguous and distinct from siblings such as compass_get_saved_homes, so an agent can understand what this tool is about.
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 no direct guidance on when to call this tool or which sibling to use instead; it only states that the tool is not yet supported and will throw an error. An agent is left to infer that the call should be avoided, but no alternative tool or condition is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.