Draft a plain-English report of the last 7 days: runs, checkpoints saved (Pro) or that would have been saved (free). Read-only; sends nothing.
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": "weekly_report"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: "Read-only; sends nothing" rules out side effects or notifications, and it flags tier-dependent behavior (Pro vs free users get different content). It stops short of saying whether the draft is persisted or how it is returned.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with each clause (report contents, tier nuance, safety profile) adding distinct information. 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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, scope, tier behavior, and safety profile. The main residual gap is what the returned draft looks like or where it goes, which the agent may need.
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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb ("Draft") and resource ("plain-English report of the last 7 days") and enumerates its contents (runs, checkpoints saved or that would have been saved). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_checkpoints or usage_and_upgrade without opening any schema.
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 7-day scope implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as usage_and_upgrade for plan/usage questions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.