Retrieve a report's statistical definitions, original data sources, and date basis before analyzing or comparing reports to ensure accurate interpretation.
读取报告统计口径、原始来源和日期依据；分析或跨报告比较前先查这里。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes | ||
| release_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns statistical definitions, sources and date basis, and when to consult it, but does not detail return format or auth/rate limits. With annotations covering safety, 3.
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?
One short sentence front-loads the verb and content; every clause adds value with no repetition. 5.
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 covers purpose, return content and usage timing, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the unexplained release_id is a notable gap. 3.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions neither report_id nor release_id. Only the word '报告' weakly implies report_id; release_id is entirely unexplained, so 2.
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 ('读取') and resource ('报告统计口径、原始来源和日期依据'), making clear it returns metadata rather than report content. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so 4.
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?
Explicitly instructs to check here before analysis or cross-report comparison, giving clear usage context. It lacks exclusions or named alternative tools, so 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.