Lists pages of the active PBIR report, providing ID, name, size, and visual count for each page.
Lista las paginas del informe PBIR activo (id, nombre, tamano, nº visuales).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the active report and the fields returned, but does not discuss error conditions or dependencies beyond 'activo.' This is acceptable but not rich.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.
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?
Given zero parameters, a read-only annotation, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, scope (active report), and returned fields. There are no critical gaps.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter detail is needed. The description's mention of returned fields partially compensates for a no-parameter tool, but the baseline 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Lista' and clearly identifies the resource as 'paginas del informe PBIR activo', enumerating returned fields (id, nombre, tamaño, nº visuales). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_list_visuals and pbi_list_bookmarks.
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 description clearly states the tool operates on the active PBIR report, providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous for a list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.