get_reportFetch a report by its ID and wait for completion if the analysis is still running.
Fetch a report analyse_plot started, by its id. Waits if it is still running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes | The id analyse_plot returned. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior: the call blocks/waits while the report is still running. It stops short of stating any timeout, polling cap, or error behavior for failed reports.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the blocking behavior front-loaded in the second sentence where an agent will see it before invoking.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this covers the essentials plus the blocking trait. Slightly incomplete on what happens if the report fails or how long the wait can last.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already has a description tying it to analyse_plot's return value. The description adds no format constraints (e.g., the 64-char max) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (fetch) plus resource (report) and explicit provenance (one started by analyse_plot). It also implies the retrieval half of the analyse_plot workflow, though it doesn't address how it differs from the sibling sample_report.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: 'by its id' plus 'The id analyse_plot returned' tells the agent this follows an analyse_plot call. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of sample_report as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.