Skip to main content
Glama

scout_report

Generate the final markdown report with findings, page quality scores, role matrix, and an explicit gap ledger; gates by level so extensive reports refuse while untested gaps remain.

Instructions

Generate the final markdown report — findings, page quality scores (worst first), role capability matrix, oracle rollup, and the GAP LEDGER (an explicit list of what was NOT tested). Writes the full document to .scenescout/report.md and returns a bounded SUMMARY (full reports exceed client token limits). Gates by level: 'minimal' needs all routes visited + ≥1 design audit; 'medium' additionally needs several routes audited; 'extensive' REFUSES while the gap ledger is non-empty — that refusal is the completeness guarantee: an extensive report only generates when nothing known is left untested. force=true overrides (only when the user capped the budget).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoGenerate even though gates are unmet (only when the user capped the budget)
levelNoWhich completion contract to enforce — match the level the run was asked formedium
reportNoWhich parts the report carries. 'both' (default): the Summary first — what was checked, when, for how long and how carefully, what was found, the problems as a table with their impact (blocks users, annoying, cosmetic), then each problem folded with its numbered steps, what was expected and what happened — then the Evidence (each problem's picture and the frames recorded before it, only when there is one), then the technical details, folded. 'qa': the Summary and the Evidence alone, for a tester or anyone not technical. 'dev': the technical report alone, unfolded. report.html adds the steps every session took, folded, whichever is chosen. It applies to the files this call writes; the live view always shows both.both
historyNoHow much of the history to print. 'index' lists findings from earlier runs, and resolved ones, as a row each: id, severity, age, title. 'full' prints every one in full as before — on one project that was 1.75 MB against 113 KB, nearly half of it findings already fixed. Use 'full' when handing the document to someone who has no access to the memory.index
sessionNoTarget this session directly instead of the active one — pass it explicitly when dispatching to MULTIPLE sessions in one turn (e.g. two scout_click calls with different `session`), which then run CONCURRENTLY rather than queueing. Omit for single-session sequential use.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.31.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv3.28.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / report / description
      Previous value: -"Which parts the report carries. 'both' (default): a plain-language section first — a short summary, then each problem with numbered steps, what was expected, what happened, its picture and its impact (blocks users, annoying, cosmetic), each with its technical detail folded beneath — followed by the technical report. 'qa': the plain section alone, for a tester or anyone not technical. 'dev': the technical report alone, as before the plain section existed. It applies to the files this call writes; the live view always shows both."New value: +"Which parts the report carries. 'both' (default): the Summary first — what was checked, when, for how long and how carefully, what was found, the problems as a table with their impact (blocks users, annoying, cosmetic), then each problem folded with its numbered steps, what was expected and what happened — then the Evidence (each problem's picture and the frames recorded before it, only when there is one), then the technical details, folded. 'qa': the Summary and the Evidence alone, for a tester or anyone not technical. 'dev': the technical report alone, unfolded. report.html adds the steps every session took, folded, whichever is chosen. It applies to the files this call writes; the live view always shows both."
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv3.17.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / report
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": "both",
      +  "description": "Which parts the report carries. 'both' (default): a plain-language section first — a short summary, then each problem with numbered steps, what was expected, what happened, its picture and its impact (blocks users, annoying, cosmetic), each with its technical detail folded beneath — followed by the technical report. 'qa': the plain section alone, for a tester or anyone not technical. 'dev': the technical report alone, as before the plain section existed. It applies to the files this call writes; the live view always shows both.",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "both",
      +    "qa",
      +    "dev"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv3.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / history
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": "index",
      +  "description": "How much of the history to print. 'index' lists findings from earlier runs, and resolved ones, as a row each: id, severity, age, title. 'full' prints every one in full as before — on one project that was 1.75 MB against 113 KB, nearly half of it findings already fixed. Use 'full' when handing the document to someone who has no access to the memory.",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "index",
      +    "full"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  5. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the write target (.scenescout/report.md), why the return is a bounded summary (full reports exceed client token limits), and the refusal-as-completeness-guarantee behavior. That is exactly the contract-level detail an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the what and outputs in the first sentence, then the gating rules. Dense with parentheticals and caps and slightly long, but nearly every clause conveys actionable contract detail rather than filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return (bounded summary vs. full file), the file side effect, and the gating contract that governs successful invocation. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining the enforcement semantics of `level`, the constrained role of `force` ('only when the user capped the budget'), and the report/history tradeoffs. It reinforces rather than duplicates the schema, though not every parameter is addressed in the prose.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('the final markdown report') and enumerates the exact contents: findings, page quality scores, role capability matrix, oracle rollup, and gap ledger. It is clearly the terminal report tool, though it never names siblings like scout_lane_report or scout_recap to draw the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly describes the level-gated completion contracts and the refusal condition ('extensive REFUSES while the gap ledger is non-empty'), plus the force override only when the user capped the budget. Strong when/when-not guidance, but it does not point to any alternative tool for partial or intermediate reporting.

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