get_analysis_reportRetourne le rapport Markdown d’une étude PPA terminée et une URL PDF privée valable deux minutes. Le reçu secret autorise uniquement cette étude et ne doit pas être journalisé ni partagé.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the PDF URL is private and valid for only two minutes, and the receipt is a secret that authorizes only this study and must not be logged or shared. This is important operational guidance not present in the annotations.
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 wasted words. It front-loads what the tool returns and then adds the critical security caveats. Every sentence 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 a single parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is returned, the time-limited PDF URL, the secret handling requirement, and the precondition that the study be completed. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the 'receipt' parameter. It does so by explaining that the receipt is secret, authorizes only this study, and should not be logged or shared. It does not explain where to obtain the receipt or the exact format, but the pattern in the schema covers format, and the semantic role is clarified.
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: it returns the Markdown report of a completed PPA study plus a private PDF URL. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_analysis_study by specifying 'étude PPA terminée' (completed study) and by mentioning the report content.
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 gives a clear usage context: use it for a completed PPA study when you have the secret receipt. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well defined enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.