report_openResume an existing test report session by specifying its report folder, so you can continue building or exporting PXE200 SA measurement reports without starting over.
Resume an existing report session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | Existing report folder name or path |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, yet it only restates the action. It does not say what happens if the folder does not exist, whether the session must already be live, what state is restored, or whether resuming interferes with an already-open session.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though its brevity tips into under-specification rather than maximal conciseness.
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?
With only one parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema that covers return values, the definition is adequate but thin for a session-state operation with zero annotation coverage. A note on preconditions or interaction with existing sessions would complete it.
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 100% and the folder parameter is documented in the schema as an existing folder name or path, so the description need not repeat it. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.
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 verb 'resume' plus the resource 'report session' gives a specific, unambiguous action that an agent can distinguish from report_start's create-new semantics. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it stops short of 5.
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 word 'existing' implies this is for reconnecting to a prior session rather than creating one, which implicitly routes away from report_start, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or reference to report_list/report_status for discovery.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.