Run a Screener.in query to screen Indian stocks by financial criteria such as return on capital employed or debt to equity, returning matching companies ranked by sort order and limited to a set count.
Run a Screener.in query, e.g. "Return on capital employed > 20 AND Debt to equity < 0.3".
Needs a Screener.in login set up once with screener-india-mcp login.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | desc | |
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: a one-time Screener.in login prerequisite via the CLI, which is exactly the kind of auth requirement that would otherwise cause silent failures. It stops short of noting result-size or rate-limit behavior.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the concrete query example that carries most of the informational value, and the prerequisite follows. Nothing is padded, though the login instruction could be more crisply separated from the core description.
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?
With no output schema, the description should say what comes back — e.g. a list of matching companies with which columns, and how 'limit' interacts with results. It also omits the sort/order semantics, leaving an agent unable to predict result shape or ordering.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does well on the required 'query' parameter by showing valid Screener.in expression syntax, but 'sort', 'order', and 'limit' (default 25) are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run a Screener.in query') and supplies a concrete query example, so the agent immediately understands this is a custom fundamental screen rather than a lookup. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling screen-like tools such as theme_screen, so the differentiation is only implicit.
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 example query implies the intended use case (screening by financial ratios) and a setup prerequisite is given, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus theme_screen, nor any when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer that this is for ad-hoc user-authored screens.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.