workbooks_list_reportsList all reports in your organization to inventory, audit, or manage Sigma workbooks. Use this tool to retrieve report names for reporting oversight.
List all reports in the organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the org-wide scope, but says nothing about pagination despite the limit parameter, nor about result volume or ordering. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.
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 with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight writing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, which relieves much of the burden. Still missing are pagination behavior tied to the limit parameter and any disambiguation from workbooks_list_all_reports, both of which an agent needs to call this correctly.
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 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the description carries the burden and fails: it never mentions pagination, the default of 200, or what the limit caps. The schema gives only type and default, so the agent gets no meaning beyond that.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (reports) with the scope 'in the organization', so an agent knows this is an org-wide listing. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the very similar sibling workbooks_list_all_reports, leaving the agent to guess which listing tool to pick.
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 guidance on when to use this versus workbooks_list_all_reports, workbooks_get_report, or the many report-scoped listers (workbooks_list_report_sources, workbooks_list_report_elements). There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.