Provides a concise overview of ClassQuill tutoring data by condensing operational reports into key metrics.
Reports Summary
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active_tutors | No | ||
| sessions_today | No | ||
| active_students | No | ||
| outstanding_cents | No | ||
| pending_approvals | Yes | ||
| settled_this_week_cents | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. With readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint already present, the description merely restates the label and offers no insight into what the operation observes or returns.
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?
While extremely concise, the description is under-specified to the point of being uninformative. It contains only a label and provides no operational clue, so brevity is not serving the agent.
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?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description gives no indication of what reports are included, how the summary is scoped, or what information the agent can gain from calling this tool. The description is far too weak to support correct selection.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema carries no semantic burden and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing missing for an agent to invoke the tool.
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 is exactly identical to the tool name and title: 'Reports Summary'. It provides no verb, no resource detail, and no information about what kind of summary is produced, making it a pure tautology.
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?
There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools such as coverage_summary. An agent cannot determine the appropriate context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.