Generate and export incident reports as HTML or JSON files by providing an incident ID.
Generate and export incident report in HTML or JSON format
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | Yes | Export format (html or json) | |
| incident_id | Yes | The incident ID to export |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not clarify whether the export creates a file, returns a download link, writes to storage, or requires special permissions, leaving the tool's side effects and output ambiguous.
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, concise sentence that states the core action and the supported output formats without unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, but it omits what the export returns or where it goes. Given no output schema is present, a bit more detail about the result would make the tool contextually complete.
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 schema already covers both parameters with descriptions and the format enum, so the description adds little beyond the schema. There is no additional semantic detail about the incident_id format or the nature of the exported report.
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 clearly identifies the action (generate/export), the resource (incident report), and the supported formats (HTML or JSON). It is distinct from sibling tools like get-incident-details and list-incidents, though it could more explicitly contrast with them.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-incident-details or list-incidents. The description implies it is for export, but does not explain the circumstances that should lead an agent to choose it over retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.