Skip to main content
Glama

report_export

Exports evidence-bound HTML, Markdown, JSON, CSV, or PNG reports for a calculation run ID, including failed or partial runs, and returns a job ID; missing evidence cannot yield a PASS.

Instructions

Export evidence-bound HTML/Markdown/JSON/CSV/PNG for calculation run_id, including failed/partial runs. Returns job_id. Missing evidence cannot yield PASS.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "report_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesTool arguments object (all fields documented; Z is positive upward).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the call is asynchronous (returns job_id), it works on failed and partial runs, and missing evidence forecloses a PASS outcome. It omits that idempotency_key dedupes requests and doesn't say how to fetch the finished artifact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and formats, then the return handle, then the key constraint. No filler sentences.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single nested-parameter async export tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, async return, and the evidence-binding validation rule. The remaining gap is retrieval: after job_id, the agent isn't pointed at job_status or artifact_inspect.

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% and the nested request object documents every field (run_id, project_id, execution policy, idempotency_key) in detail, so the schema carries the burden. The description only echoes run_id and adds no syntax beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource: export a report for a calculation run_id, with the concrete output formats (HTML/Markdown/JSON/CSV/PNG) enumerated. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby results_export or scene_export siblings, so an agent must infer the difference from the format list alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the mention of calculation run_id and of failed/partial runs suggests it follows calculation_run, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not phrasing and no named alternative. Nothing tells the agent why to pick this over results_export.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.