PXE200 SA MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Report Add Note

report_add_note

Adds a free-text note or section (setup, observation, conclusion) to a test report, with optional heading and PASS/FAIL/INFO verdict.

Instructions

Add a free-text section (setup, observation, conclusion) to the report.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "report_add_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes
`result`	No	Optional verdict: PASS \| FAIL \| INFO
`heading`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the note is appended or inserted, where it lands relative to existing sections, whether the target report must be open/active, or that this is a write operation that mutates report state.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate sizing. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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 no explanation, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and two undocumented parameters it should at least cover prerequisites and the effect of the call. The description leaves those entirely open.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%: 'text' (the required field) and 'heading' are undocumented in the schema. The description implies free text for 'text' and hints at heading-style labels with 'setup, observation, conclusion', but never ties these to the actual parameter names, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Add') and resource ('free-text section ... to the report'), and the parenthetical names plausible section types. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby report_edit_item, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to reach for.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The presence of report_start/report_open siblings implies a report must exist first, but the description never says so.

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