savings_goals_listRetrieve all savings goals for a Starling Bank account by providing its account UID. Use it to view goal progress, balances, and targets when managing savings plans.
Get all savings goals for an account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountUid | Yes | The account UID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| savingsGoalList | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond that restatement. There is no mention of pagination, result limits, or whether goals from closed/archived states are included, which is the kind of detail a list tool benefits from.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is arguably too terse for the tool's scope, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the sole required parameter is documented in the schema. The description is sufficient for correct invocation, though it stops short of any scoping or ordering context.
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 there is only one required parameter (accountUid), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Get all savings goals for an account'), which clearly separates it from the mutation siblings savings_goal_create/update/delete/deposit/withdraw. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route away from, but the list-vs-mutate distinction 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as account_balance_get or the savings_goal_* mutation tools. Usage is only implied by the word 'all'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.