Skip to main content
Glama

FMEPM Connect for Oracle EPM

List scheduled reports

list_scheduled_reports
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists this user's scheduled reports with their cadence, the next run in the schedule's time zone, the last outcome (partial: true with totalRows when the last file was cut to the policy's cell limit) and the link to the last file (valid until it expires, behind a sign-in to the portal; null once it expired). Use it to check whether a report exists, when it runs next and why the last run failed.

Tool call template

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": "list_scheduled_reports"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), yet the description still adds non-obvious traits: results can be partial with totalRows when a file hits the cell-limit policy, the file link is behind a portal sign-in and expires to null. These are exactly the surprises an agent would otherwise misreport.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. The nested parentheticals about truncation and link expiry are dense but each carries actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of describing the return shape, and it does so field by field, including edge-case semantics (partial/null). Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no input to document. The description instead documents output fields, which the schema cannot convey since no output schema exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists this user's scheduled reports") and enumerates exactly what each entry carries: cadence, next run, last outcome, last file link. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (create_scheduled_report, check_job_status), so an agent must infer the boundary, but the scope ("this user's") is precise.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use it to check whether a report exists, when it runs next and why the last run failed" gives three concrete triggers. No exclusions or named alternatives, but the intended situations are unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources