Retrieve Web Intelligence report metadata (name, folder path, CUID, scheduled status, state) to inspect or troubleshoot BI documents.
Retrieves metadata of a Webi report (name, repository folder path, CUID, scheduled status, and state).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webi_doc_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about permissions, whether an invalid or inaccessible webi_doc_id errors versus returns empty, or any access constraints. The enumerated return fields are the only added context.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its returned fields are stated immediately.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained (the description repeats them anyway), and for a one-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient. The gaps are the ambiguous webi_doc_id format and the absence of any routing against the several doc-related siblings.
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 single parameter webi_doc_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds nothing about its expected format (ID vs CUID). In fact the description lists CUID as a returned field, which could confuse the agent about what the input actually is.
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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('metadata of a Webi report') and even enumerates the returned fields, so the operation is unmistakable. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_doc_properties, get_documents, or get_webi_docs, leaving the agent to guess which doc-metadata tool to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_doc_properties or get_documents. The agent gets no signal about which sibling to choose for report metadata.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.