work_orders_reportReport the whole board: how many work orders sit at each status, the hours logged this month, and the value not yet invoiced per currency, with the oldest open jobs named. Pro.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum oldest-open rows listed, default and ceiling 500 | |
| month | No | The month for the hours figure, YYYY-MM. Default the current month |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the report's contents and output categories, which is useful. But annotations provide no read-only or idempotency assurances, and the description does not say whether this is purely read-only, whether it generates an artifact, or what permissions are needed. 'Report' suggests read-only but does not explicitly commit to it, so there is no direct contradiction.
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 compact and front-loaded, with the main content enumerated in a single dense sentence. The trailing 'Pro.' is cryptically unnecessary and slightly detracts, but the overall structure is efficient.
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 two-parameter report tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return sections and parameter intent. It lacks an explicit output format or a clearer usage scenario, but the essential invocation information is present.
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%: limit and month both have clear descriptions. The description loosely aligns 'this month' and 'oldest open jobs' with those parameters but adds no format, constraints, or default information beyond what the schema already provides.
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 concrete deliverable: report the whole board, including status counts, monthly hours, uninvoiced value per currency, and oldest open jobs. The verb 'Report' plus the explicit resource scope clearly distinguishes this from the sibling completion reports and single-work-order tools.
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 implies when to use it — when a board-wide aggregate is needed — by spelling out what it covers. However, it does not mention alternatives such as completion_report_text/pdf or state exclusions, leaving some selection ambiguity.
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.