workbooks_verify_report_specValidate a report specification against a workbook folder without saving changes, helping catch errors before creating or updating reports.
Verify a report code representation specification without saving.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| document | Yes | ||
| folder_id | Yes | ||
| description | 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?
'Without saving' is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and usefully confirms the side-effect-free nature of the call. However, it adds nothing beyond what the annotations already declare — no mention of what a failed verification produces, whether it can error on invalid specs, or any auth/rate context.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the no-save constraint is placed where it will be read. It is efficiently sized, though the jargon makes it less immediately informative than it could be.
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 some burden. Still, for a validation tool whose whole value is reporting whether a spec is valid, the description says nothing about what validity means or how failures surface, and it leaves the nested document contract undefined.
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% across four parameters, three of which are required, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. In particular the nested 'document' object and its expected shape — the crux of a 'spec' — are left entirely undocumented.
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 ('Verify') and a specific resource ('report code representation specification'), and the 'report' qualifier differentiates it from the sibling workbooks_verify_workbook_spec. The phrase 'code representation specification' is internal jargon that an agent cannot fully decode, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.
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 only usage signal is 'without saving,' which hints at a dry-run but never states when this tool should be chosen over workbooks_create_report or workbooks_verify_workbook_spec. No prerequisites, no exclusion conditions, and no named alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.