Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
document-mcp

document-mcp

by ExaDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List .odb reports

odb_reports

Lists all reports declared in an .odb database, including data-source commands, band/group structure, and rpt: formula expressions.

Instructions

Lists every report an .odb database declares, with each report's own data-source command, band/group structure, and rpt: formula expressions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "odb_reports"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYes.odb database to read. 'path' points at the .odb file on disk -- its extension is never used to infer a document format, since documents.js deliberately excludes 'odb' from DocumentFormat (an embedded database front end has no single natural target format -- tables, saved queries, and reports are three unrelated output shapes -- see that package's own README). 'bytesBase64' carries the .odb bytes inline; its 'format' field is required by the shared hybrid input shape but unused by every odb tool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.8
    • changedInput schema / properties / source / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "path": {
-        "description": "Filesystem path to the document to read. The document format is inferred from the file extension.",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "path"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "bytesBase64": {
-        "description": "Base64-encoded document bytes.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "format": {
-        "description": "The document format of bytesBase64 -- required, since inline bytes carry no filename to infer it from.",
-        "enum": [
-          "docx",
-          "pptx",
-          "xlsx",
-          "odt",
-          "odp",
-          "ods",
-          "odg",
-          "odf",
-          "markdown",
-          "pdf"
-        ],
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "bytesBase64",
-      "format"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "path": {
+        "description": "Filesystem path to the document to read. The document format is inferred from the file extension.",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "path"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "bytesBase64": {
+        "description": "Base64-encoded document bytes.",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "format": {
+        "description": "The document format of bytesBase64 -- required, since inline bytes carry no filename to infer it from.",
+        "enum": [
+          "docx",
+          "pptx",
+          "xlsx",
+          "odt",
+          "odp",
+          "ods",
+          "odg",
+          "svg",
+          "odf",
+          "csv",
+          "markdown",
+          "pdf"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "bytesBase64",
+      "format"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
  2. Addedv1.1.6

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description mentions what it returns but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or any side effects, though it is implicit for a listing operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and focused, with no unnecessary details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is sufficiently complete for a list operation, covering the parameter and return details, though it could be more explicit about usage context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The source parameter is well explained, including the union of path and bytesBase64+format, with clarification that format is not used for ODB, adding value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists reports in an ODB database and specifies the details returned (data-source command, band/group structure, rpt: formula expressions), distinguishing it from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as odb_tables or odb_forms.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools