Run enabled Frappe reports through permission-checked queries, with filters and limits, to return results for analysis or automation.
Run an enabled report using Frappe's permission-checked query-report API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| filters | No | ||
| report_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the query is 'permission-checked', which is genuinely useful behavioral context about access scoping. However it omits that this is a read-only operation, says nothing about result size, pagination, or what the default limit of 200 implies.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing detail rather than a virtue in itself.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations the description leaves too much open: the filters object format, the meaning of limit, and the failure mode for disabled reports are all absent.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: 'filters' and 'limit' are never mentioned, even though filters is a free-form object whose expected shape is the hardest part of the call. Only 'report_name' is indirectly explained via the 'enabled report' phrasing.
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 ('Run') and resource ('report') and adds the constraint that the report must be 'enabled'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the document CRUD siblings, though it never names them explicitly.
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 only usage signal is the word 'enabled', which hints at a precondition but gives no guidance on when to choose run_report over list_documents or get_doctype_schema, and no mention of what happens with a disabled or unknown report.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.