get_reportRead a report by its slug without waiting, with provider placement so far.
The report stays at its link for good and anyone with the link can read
it: the checks, the score, the fix plan, and the subject and sender of
the email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The slug of a test, the last part of the report URL. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | Yes | Which card to draw. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / view / descriptionPrevious value: -"test, report, mailbox, mailboxes, series or error"New value: +"Which card to draw."Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"The slug of a test or of a letter in a series mailbox, the last part of the report URL."New value: +"The slug of a test, the last part of the report URL."Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"The slug of a test, the last part of the report URL."New value: +"The slug of a test or of a letter in a series mailbox, the last part of the report URL."Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / descriptionAdded value: +"What every tool returns for the card; `view` says which card."Output schema / properties / resultRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / viewAdded value: +{
+ "description": "test, report, mailbox, mailboxes, series or error",
+ "title": "View",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "result"
-]New value: +[
+ "view"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"get_reportOutput"New value: +"Output"Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"The slug of a test, the last part of the report URL."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the report stays at its link permanently and anyone with the link can read it, which is useful permission context, but it omits error behavior (e.g. unknown slug) and response format details already covered by the output schema.
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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the content list following. The 'provider placement so far' phrase is slightly awkward and the preamble is a bit longer than necessary, but there is no real waste.
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?
The tool is simple, has a rich set of annotations, and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers purpose, permanence, and access. A small missing piece is what happens when the slug is unknown, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 100% and the slug parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'the last part of the report URL'. The description only restates 'by its slug', adding no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so 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?
States a specific verb (read) and resource (report by slug), and the 'without waiting' phrase differentiates it from the sibling wait_for_report. The enumerated content (checks, score, fix plan, subject/sender) makes the return value concrete.
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 phrase 'without waiting' implies this is the right call when the report already exists, positioning it against wait_for_report. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or naming of the alternative is given, so the contrast is left to inference.
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.