report_listList the caller's recent async report jobs with their statuses (and result_url once DONE). Use this to recover a report_id or see which reports have finished — for example if a report was submitted earlier and its id was lost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reports | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output includes statuses and result_url, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or what 'recent' means. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks some behavioral context.
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 sentences, no wasted words, action is front-loaded. Efficient and clear.
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?
Given no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient high-level context. It mentions statuses and result_url, but does not define 'recent' or explain pagination. However, for a list tool with output schema, this is largely 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?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the schema coverage is 100% implicitly.
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 clearly states the tool lists the caller's recent async report jobs with statuses and result_url. The verb 'list' and resource 'async report jobs' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like report_request (which submits) and report_status (which might check specific ones).
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 description explicitly says to use this to recover a report_id or check finished reports, with a concrete example. However, it does not contrast with sibling tool report_status or mention when not to use this tool, which slightly limits 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: vessel tracking (get_vessel, get_vessel_pro, get_vessel_history, get_vessel_info, estimated_vessel_position), registry search (find_vessels, find_ports), port details (get_port), weather (get_weather), sea route (sea_route), async reports (report_*), and intelligence modules (intel_*). Even similar tools like find_vessels vs get_vessel are well-differentiated by their descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase underscore pattern with a verb_noun structure (e.g., get_vessel, find_ports, sea_route). The intel_* tools use a uniform prefix for intelligence operations, maintaining predictability across the set.
With 25 tools, this server is at the upper boundary of the borderline range. While the tools are well-organized and necessary for the comprehensive maritime intelligence domain, the count feels slightly heavy compared to an ideal 3-15 tool scope.
The tool surface is remarkably complete: it covers vessel tracking (live, historic, estimated), registry search, port details, weather, sea route calculation, async report management, and a full suite of intelligence reports (casualties, inspections, ownership, etc.). There are no obvious gaps for maritime vessel tracking and intelligence tasks.