list_reportsRetrieve curated, pre-approved ERP reports and their parameters to identify available reports and required inputs for safe, read-only reporting.
List curated, pre-approved ERP reports (PL/SQL procedures returning SYS_REFCURSOR) and their parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (these are curated, pre-approved PL/SQL procedures returning SYS_REFCURSOR), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or catalog size.
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 that identifies the resource and its nature with no filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.
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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back. It does state that reports and their parameters are returned, but gives no sense of the return shape, pagination, or how the listed parameters should be used when calling run_report.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The mention of 'their parameters' correctly signals that parameter metadata is part of the returned payload rather than something the caller supplies.
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 (curated, pre-approved ERP reports) and adds the technical nature of those reports (PL/SQL procedures returning SYS_REFCURSOR), which is more than a tautology. It implicitly contrasts with run_report, but never names any sibling to differentiate 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named despite run_report being an obvious next step after discovery. The intended workflow (discover then run) is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.