reports-overviewReads aggregate revenue, receivables, job, lead, and estimate performance for the authenticated workspace without exposing customer names, addresses, invoice rows, or mutation access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | Number of days for the bounded trend metrics; defaults to 30. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description transparently states the tool is read-only and does not expose sensitive data or mutation capabilities. It also notes it operates for the authenticated workspace. However, it does not describe the response format or any potential side effects, which, given the annotations already indicate read-only, adds value but is not fully comprehensive.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that includes essential information about the tool's purpose and limitations. There is no unnecessary verbosity.
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?
The description covers the tool's core functionality, exclusions, and workspace context. The parameter is well-documented. It does not specify the exact output structure, but for an aggregate report, the provided detail is sufficient. Minor missing info about return format is acceptable given no output schema exists.
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 only parameter 'period' is clearly defined in the schema with a description, enum values, and a default. The tool description adds 'bounded trend metrics' for extra context. The parameter semantics are fully covered and well-explained.
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 reads aggregate performance metrics for revenue, receivables, jobs, leads, and estimates. It explicitly lists what it does not expose (customer names, addresses, invoice rows) and that it does not allow mutations, which helps distinguish from sibling tools that might handle detailed or sensitive data.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies it is for aggregate overviews, but lacks direct comparisons or conditions. There is no mention of 'use this when' or 'instead of' specific sibling tools.
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.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.