List the saved Sulvo advanced reports for the account. Requires SULVO_API_KEY (with the reports:read scope) in the server environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outputFormat | No | markdown |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although no annotations are provided, the description explicitly discloses the required authentication (SULVO_API_KEY) and the needed scope, which is key for an agent to understand access requirements. It doesn't detail behavior when no reports exist or error handling, but the name 'list' implies a read-only operation.
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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the action and a critical requirement. Every word earns its place.
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 the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and a key prerequisite. It does not describe what the returned list contains (e.g., report names or IDs), but for a simple list operation, this is adequate.
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, outputFormat, is not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides no additional meaning beyond the enum values in the schema. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description should at least note that the output format can be chosen among markdown, json, or csv.
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 saved Sulvo advanced reports for the account. The verb 'list' combined with the resource 'sulvo advanced reports' differentiates it from siblings like 'create_sulvo_advanced_report' or 'get_sulvo_report' which involve creation or retrieval of a specific report.
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 specifies that the tool requires a SULVO_API_KEY with 'reports:read' scope, providing a clear prerequisite. It implies usage to see available reports before selecting one, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_sulvo_report' which would require a report identifier.
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.
Many tools are clearly scoped (e.g., `create_sulvo_ad_unit` vs `delete_sulvo_ad_unit`), but there is confusion with tools like `run_publisher_revenue_audit` and `get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist` which sound like they could overlap. Also, `start_sulvo_signup` and `create_sulvo_signup_account` seem to operate on different stages of signup but could be confused at a glance.
The naming convention is generally consistent with a `verb_sulvo_noun` pattern (e.g., `create_sulvo_ad_unit`, `delete_sulvo_ad_unit`). The `get_` and `run_` prefixes are used somewhat inconsistently (e.g., `run_publisher_revenue_audit` vs `get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist`), and some tool names feel a bit verbose, but overall patterns are recognizable.
With 40 tools, the server covers a massive surface area including signup, activation, reporting, and auditing. While each tool has a specific purpose, the number feels somewhat bloated for a single server, suggesting it could be split into more focused sub-servers (e.g., `sulvo-signup`, `sulvo-reporting`). It is on the high end of 'appropriate'.
The tool set appears very complete for the Sulvo ecosystem, covering everything from account creation (`create_sulvo_signup_account`) to auditing (`run_agentic_readiness_audit`) and activation (`submit_sulvo_activation_workspace`). The only minor gap is the lack of a direct way to start signup beyond step 1, but this is documented as an API limitation, not a tool gap.
