List all assets attached to a report, with their public URLs. Useful for discovering what's already uploaded before deciding whether to add more or reference existing files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes | UUID of the report. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, how the public URLs behave, or what happens with reports that have no assets.
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 compact sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the usage motivation.
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?
It covers purpose and usage intent, but for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits safety profile, auth requirements, pagination, and return shape. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of structured behavioral data.
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 coverage is 100% and the single report_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (List) and resource (assets attached to a report), and adds the return content (public URLs). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_report, list_reports, and upload_report_asset.
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?
Gives a clear use context: discovering what's already uploaded before adding more or referencing existing files. This implicitly routes the agent away from upload_report_asset, though it doesn't name the alternative explicitly or state exclusions.
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.