get_reportGet a single report by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Report ID (from list_reports) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The report — id, name, type, client_id, theme_id, date_range, its pages, and the cover / thank-you / password / PDF settings. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "The report — id, name, type, client_id, theme_id, date_range, its pages, and the cover / thank-you / password / PDF settings.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond fetching by ID, and with an output schema present, the return shape is documented elsewhere. No contradiction exists.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains all essential information with zero wasted words. The structure is ideal for quick agent scanning.
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?
For a simple read-only getter with one parameter and a rich output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, the title includes 'or dashboard' while the description only mentions report, leaving a mild ambiguity about whether dashboard IDs are also accepted.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the id parameter is described as 'Report ID (from list_reports)', which gives useful provenance. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get a single report by ID.' It is clear and distinguishes this from list operations like list_reports. However, it does not explain the title's 'or dashboard' scope and does not explicitly contrast with sibling getters such as get_asset or get_widget.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not say when to prefer this over list_reports or other getters, and there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The only hint is the id parameter description referencing list_reports, but the main description gives no usage context.
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.