Fetch a report by id. Returns metadata + the stored HTML. Requires view permission.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_report"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Report id (UUID). |
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 behavioral burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: the return content (metadata plus stored HTML) and the authorization requirement (view permission). Missing are failure behavior for a nonexistent id and whether the HTML is rendered or raw, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly steps in to say what is returned (metadata + stored HTML) and notes the permission requirement. It stops short of covering not-found behavior and how it differs from read_report, so it is strong but not complete.
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?
Only one parameter, already fully documented by the schema ('Report id (UUID)'). The description's 'by id' restates the schema without adding format, lookup, or edge-case semantics, so the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a report by id') and adds the distinguishing payload ('metadata + the stored HTML'). It is clearly differentiated in substance from list_reports, but it never names a sibling such as read_report, which may well overlap with fetching a report — that ambiguity keeps it at 4.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'by id' — the agent can infer this is the lookup-by-identifier path, and 'Requires view permission' gives a prerequisite. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_reports/search_reports/read_report, and no when-not guidance.
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.