Read card visuals from Power BI reports, returning parsed data as an array of titles and values.
Parsed card visuals as [{title, value}].
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "pbi_read_cards"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format but does not mention side effects, required state (e.g., presence of card visuals on page), error conditions, or idempotency. The description is minimal but not misleading; it adequately conveys the basic behavior.
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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It communicates the tool's purpose efficiently.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior. However, it lacks context about when card visuals exist or how to ensure they are present. A more complete description might mention invoking after pbi_visuals or similar dependency.
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?
There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter information but is consistent with the schema. Per guidelines, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4.
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 clearly states the tool parses card visuals and returns a list of dictionaries with title and value. It uses a specific verb ('parses') and resource ('card visuals'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like pbi_read_matrix by focusing specifically on card visuals.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear and it's a simple read operation, there is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. The presence of sibling tools like pbi_read_matrix suggests different visual types, but no comparison is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.