fd-cn-report

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_cache

Browse cached annual reports with parsed stock code, year, form, cache timestamp, and total size. Check which filings are already stored locally.

Instructions

List cached annual reports.

Each entry carries the parsed provenance (stock_code / year / form / announcement_id for convenience-tool fetches, or kind: "url" for raw extract_section/list_outline URL fetches), cached_at (file mtime, ISO-8601 UTC), and size (sum of its .pdf + .txt + .outline.json).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.4Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially addresses it. It describes the entry structure (provenance, cached_at, size) but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or whether listing affects cache state. The added detail is useful but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with its purpose and then efficiently details the entry format. The second sentence is dense but informative; it could be slightly streamlined, but overall it earns its place without excess.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (0 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context by explaining what is listed and what each entry contains. However, it lacks usage context to differentiate from siblings, leaving a minor gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, matching the baseline score of 4 for this dimension when there are no parameters to document.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cached annual reports'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_reports or list_filings by focusing on cached items, allowing an agent to identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. With many sibling tools that also list or search reports, the description offers no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose correctly.

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