Find published Warhammer 40K reports filtered by report date window; browse paginated results (20 per page) to obtain report_id and release_id for fetching details.
找已上线报告；日期按报告统计窗口筛选。每页20条，先从结果取得report_id和release_id。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| release_id | No | ||
| version_id | No | ||
| report_source | 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 the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: 20 results per page and date filtering based on the report's statistical window.
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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before date, pagination, and workflow details. Every clause carries some useful information, though the extreme brevity leaves gaps rather than wasted words.
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?
For a list tool with 8 optional filters, no output schema, and no schema parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It gives page size and mentions report_id/release_id in results, but does not explain most filter behavior or return shape.
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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not. It only clarifies date-window filtering and page size, leaving type, format, report_source, version_id, and release_id filter semantics undocumented.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: find published/live reports. It adds scope with the date-window qualification, but it does not explicitly distinguish this list operation from the sibling get_report.
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 line about first obtaining report_id and release_id from the results implies a useful workflow entry point for later detail calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_report or other siblings, nor does it state any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.