unpublish_reportRevert a published report (listed or unlisted) back to private visibility, removing it from the public catalog. Author-only. Idempotent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _meta | Yes | Provenance envelope — data lineage for every MCP response | |
| report | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / _meta / properties / fundamentals_as_of / descriptionPrevious value: -"ISO timestamp when the FINANCIAL STATEMENTS were last rebuilt. Use THIS — not `last_updated` — when telling a user how current the fundamentals are. The snapshot is republished on every weekday price refresh while the statements are carried forward unchanged, so `last_updated` can be far more recent than the numbers it sits next to."New value: +"ISO timestamp when the FINANCIAL STATEMENTS were last rebuilt in bulk. Use THIS — not `last_updated` — when telling a user how current the cross-sectional fundamentals are. The snapshot is republished on every weekday price refresh while the statements are carried forward unchanged, so `last_updated` can be far more recent than the numbers it sits next to. It is a floor for a single filer, not a ceiling: a filer with a live partition receives its filing, facts and ratios intraday (minutes after EDGAR dissemination), so an entity-scoped read may carry a filing newer than this; cross-sectional ranks (factor scores, earnings signals) refresh with the weekly bulk export."Output schema / properties / _meta / properties / fundamentals_as_ofAdded value: +{
+ "description": "ISO timestamp when the FINANCIAL STATEMENTS were last rebuilt. Use THIS — not `last_updated` — when telling a user how current the fundamentals are. The snapshot is republished on every weekday price refresh while the statements are carried forward unchanged, so `last_updated` can be far more recent than the numbers it sits next to.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / _meta / properties / price_as_ofAdded value: +{
+ "description": "ISO timestamp when the price surfaces were last refreshed.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / _meta / properties / cost_usdAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "Per-call cost transparency. Omitted for subscription-only tools that have no PAYG-equivalent price.",
+ "properties": {
+ "amount_usd": {
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "basis": {
+ "description": "payg_charge = real agent-pay charge. payg_rate_card = indicative price, not billed.",
+ "enum": [
+ "payg_charge",
+ "payg_rate_card"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "billed": {
+ "description": "true = this amount was actually charged via PAYG for this call. false = indicative PAYG-equivalent value; your plan already covers this call for free.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "amount_usd",
+ "billed",
+ "basis"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / _meta / properties / latency_msAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Wall-clock milliseconds this tool call took, measured server-side around the handler.",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the specific effect (removing from public catalog) and the author-only requirement, which are not in the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation and provides additional context about the tool's behavior.
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 concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause contributes key information: the action, the scope, the effect, the access restriction, and idempotency. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is essentially complete. It covers the main behavioral aspects (visibility change, catalog removal) and constraints (author-only). It does not describe error conditions, but that is not expected for this level of tool, and the output schema likely covers return values.
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 has one parameter, report_id, with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explicitly explain the parameter, but its name is self-explanatory and the constraint (published report) implies the ID identifies the report. Given the triviality of the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have briefly mentioned it to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 action (revert a published report back to private visibility) and the resource (report). It explicitly mentions 'published report (listed or unlisted)' and 'removing it from the public catalog', making it distinct from siblings like publish_report or delete_report. The verb and outcome are unambiguous.
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 specifies the condition for use ('a published report (listed or unlisted)') and adds an access constraint ('Author-only'). It implicitly contrasts with publish_report and delete_report, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. This gives clear context about when to invoke it, though it could go further by explicitly stating exclusions.
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.