Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pbi-webview2

pbi-webview2

by bibiibjorn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

pbi_state_probe

Probes the current state of a Power BI report canvas, returning batched data on active page, toggles, cards, badges, selections, slicer visibility, and visual count.

Instructions

Batched scorecard: {activePage, toggles, cards, badges, selectedCount, slicerItemsVisible, visibleVisualCount}.

Tool call template

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_state_probe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists return fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or rate limits. The name 'state_probe' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single line, which is concise but could be more front-loaded with a clear action verb. The list of fields in braces is efficient, but a more structured sentence would improve clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields. However, it lacks context on when to use this probe compared to other state-related tools, and it does not describe the behavior of a 'batched scorecard' in detail.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by listing the output fields (activePage, toggles, etc.), which compensates for the absence of a return schema. This tells the agent what to expect from the tool.

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?

The description includes a specific verb ('Batched scorecard') and lists concrete state fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_snapshot or pbi_read_cards which focus on single aspects. However, it does not explicitly state a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_snapshot or pbi_deep_snapshot. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools