assetcache-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_saved_searches

List saved searches by project ID, showing most recently used first. Retrieve past search queries to reuse or manage them.

Instructions

저장된 검색 목록 (project_id 별, 최근 사용순).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_saved_searches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`saved_searches`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.7Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that results are ordered by recent usage and scoped by project_id, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens with a null project_id, or any other behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, brief sentence that is front-loaded with the core meaning. It contains no unnecessary words and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to clarify the optional project_id behavior (especially the null default), which is a notable gap for an otherwise simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter project_id with no description, so the description is the only source of meaning. It adds that the list is per project_id, but does not explain the default null behavior, leaving ambiguity about whether all projects are included when null is passed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that this tool lists saved searches, organized by project_id and sorted by most recently used. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_search, delete_saved_search, and run_saved_search, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_assets or find_asset. It does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios, leaving the agent without context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.