list_saved_searchesView all saved searches with their scopes and last-checked times. Works locally without network requests to show your saved configurations.
List all saved searches with their scopes and last-checked times. No network requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| searches | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral trait beyond those annotations: 'No network requests,' which implies low latency and no external side effects. It also clarifies what the response contains, though the output schema exists.
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 wasted words. The core operation is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral note ('No network requests') earns its place as valuable context.
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-parameter, read-only, deterministic tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, what information is returned, and one non-obvious behavioral trait.
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 is 4; there is nothing meaningful to add. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all saved searches'), and the data returned ('scopes and last-checked times'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_listings or list_filters, which operate on different resources.
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 intended usage is implied by the name and description, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, though the zero-parameter nature makes this a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.