Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Revel Digital MCP Server

Revel Digital MCP Server

Official
by RevelDigital
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

postreportexport

Generate and export customizable reports in multiple formats (XML, CSV, PDF, etc.) with filters for date range, devices, media, and users.

Instructions

Generate and export a report.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "postreportexport"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestBodyNoReport parameters
exclude_bodyNoExclude the generated report body in the response. This report is always available at the URL provided in the X-RevelDigital-GeneratedReportUrl response header value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.20

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Generate and export a report', omitting key details such as whether the operation is synchronous, authentication requirements, or the response format. The schema hints at response headers, but the tool description does not mention this.

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 a single concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately front-loaded, though the brevity may underrepresent the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (many parameters, nested input, no output schema), the description is far too minimal. It lacks essential context about the return value, side effects, and error conditions, which an agent needs to use it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, yielding a baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses verb+resource structure ('Generate and export a report'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'postreportadhawk', which may also generate reports.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or use-case context. The description simply states what it does without clarifying when it is appropriate.

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