get_reportGet a single report by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Report ID (from list_reports)",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / report_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Report ID (from list_reports)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "report_id"
+]Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / properties / success / descriptionPrevious value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."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 'get a single report by ID'—no mention of return format, whether dashboards are included, or any special behavior. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
One short sentence with zero waste. The key information—what it gets and by what identifier—is front-loaded and complete.
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 fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the title's mention of 'dashboard' not being reflected in the description, which could confuse an agent looking for dashboard retrieval.
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%: the only parameter, report_id, is described as 'Report ID (from list_reports).' The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb and resource: 'Get a single report by ID.' This is clear and distinguishes it from list_reports and other get_* tools, though it doesn't explicitly mention dashboards despite the title saying 'report or dashboard.'
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 implies usage: call when you have a report_id and need a single report. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_reports or preview_report, but the context is reasonably clear for a simple getter.
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.