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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: 'removing it from the public catalog' and 'Author-only'. No contradiction, and it enriches understanding of the tool's effects beyond annotations.
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 a single sentence that conveys all essential information: action, scope, access control, and idempotency. No wasted words; front-loaded with the key purpose.
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, presence of output schema, and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers visibility change, author restriction, and idempotency. Minor gap: no mention of effects on linked resources like claims or citations, but these may be irrelevant for a revert.
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 single parameter 'report_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on it, so it adds no value beyond the schema's type and length constraints. However, due to the parameter's simplicity, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'revert', the resource 'published report', and the state change to 'private visibility'. It explicitly mentions removing from public catalog, distinguishing it from sibling tools like publish_report and delete_report.
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 mentions author-only and idempotent, indicating when to use. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives like delete_report, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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 distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that clarify differences. Overlaps like get_peer_comparables vs screen_universe are well-differentiated by scope (single company vs cross-sectional). Similarly, get_insider_sentiment vs get_smart_money_flow are clearly distinguished by data sources and methodology.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_report, get_financial_ratios, delete_alert). No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verbs.
With 69 tools, the count far exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the sheer volume likely overwhelms agents and increases selection complexity.
The tool set covers a wide range of SEC filings, ratios, smart-money data, alerts, reports, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no options or detailed debt data), but most analyst workflows are supported.