gf_report_feed
GET bundled report feed for an entity.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | Yes |
GeniusFlow Evidence
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a GET operation (suggesting read-only) but does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or response structure. Minimal transparency beyond the HTTP verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but 'bundled report feed' is vague. Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the feed contains or how the entity is specified. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'entity' with no description (coverage 0%). The description mentions 'for an entity', providing some meaning for the parameter but not detailing format or expected values. It partially compensates for the lack of schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (GET), the resource (bundled report feed), and the scope (for an entity). It distinguishes this tool from siblings, which focus on other functions like citation, dossier, or status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only defines what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.
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.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct but there is some potential confusion: gf_darshan and gf_package both involve admit/refuse operations, and gf_cite and gf_verify both deal with claims. Descriptions help clarify, but boundaries are not perfectly crisp.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'gf_' prefix with snake_case resource names. The pattern is uniform across the entire set, making it predictable for agents.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a federation service. Each tool covers a distinct aspect without excessive bloat or redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core operations like citation, darshan sampling, dossier access, packaging, reporting, and verification. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit update/delete for claims), but the existing tools cover the main workflows without causing dead ends.