List recent end-of-day reports for the key's organization, most recent first. Each report summarizes who shipped, who is silent, and who is slipping. Requires the reports:read scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max reports to return (default 14). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the required auth scope (reports:read) and ordering (most recent first), adding useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention error cases or pagination behavior, but the description covers the key aspects for a read-only list 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?
Two clear sentences: first states purpose and ordering, second summarizes content and auth scope. No wasted wording, front-loaded.
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 list tool with one well-defined parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, auth scope, and content summary. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or error handling but is sufficient for a read-only list endpoint. The sibling tools are clearly distinct, so context 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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'limit' with min, max, and default. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema's own description, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.
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 'List recent end-of-day reports' with a specific resource and scope ('for the key's organization'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_report (single report) and list_team (teams). The verb 'List' and 'most recent first' provide precise purpose.
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 clearly indicates this is for listing reports, contrasting with siblings like get_report (single) and list_team (teams), so the usage context is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct to alternatives, though the sibling names make it obvious.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: retrieving a single report, listing reports, listing the team roster, and identifying the API key. No overlap in functionality or ambiguity in selection.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_report, list_reports, list_team) except whoami, which is a single verb command. This is a minor deviation but standard and recognizable, so consistency is high.
Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only EOD report and team management server. Each tool provides a necessary, non-redundant function without bloat.
The server covers the full read surface for its domain: listing reports, retrieving report details, listing team members, and authenticating the API key. No obvious missing operations for a read-only reports/team API.
