list_support_insights_reportsList this account's stored Support Insights reports (newest first): id, status, period, generated time, ticket and finding counts. Reports are computed by fixed rules from stored data; no AI wrote them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many reports to return, newest first (default 10, max 50). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine extra context: results are newest-first and, notably, that reports are computed by fixed rules rather than AI—useful provenance/trust information an agent cannot get from structured fields.
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 compact sentences: the first front-loads what is returned and the ordering, the second adds provenance. 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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (id, status, period, generated time, counts) and the sort order, and annotations cover the safety profile. Sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including default and max. The description only reiterates the newest-first ordering, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond structured data, 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 (List) and resource (this account's stored Support Insights reports) with scope and sort order, and enumerates the returned fields. The 'List' framing clearly contrasts with the singular sibling get_support_insights_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?
Usage is implied by the name and the 'List' vs 'get' sibling pairing, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus get_support_insights_report or what conditions favor listing over fetching one report. Adequate but not spelled out.
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.