Download App Store financial reports by region, date, type, and vendor number, then decode gzip and optionally parse TSV data into rows.
Download a financial report and return its parsed TSV contents. Wraps GET /v1/financeReports, decodes the gzip, and optionally parses the TSV into rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parse | No | ||
| filter_regionCode | Yes | ||
| filter_reportDate | Yes | ||
| filter_reportType | Yes | ||
| filter_vendorNumber | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does reveal the implementation pipeline (wraps GET /v1/financeReports, decodes gzip, optionally parses TSV). However it omits auth/permission requirements, error or size behavior, and output shape details beyond 'rows'.
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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it leaves little room to cover the required filters.
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?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only behavioral source; it covers the return medium (TSV) and processing, but the four required filter parameters are entirely unexplained, leaving a meaningful gap for a 5-parameter tool.
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%, and the four required filter parameters (regionCode, reportDate, reportType, vendorNumber) are undocumented in both schema and description. Only the optional 'parse' flag is explained ('optionally parses the TSV into rows'), leaving the mandatory filters with no semantic guidance.
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+resource ('Download a financial report') and describes the return ('parsed TSV contents'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling finance_reports_get_collection, but the download/parse framing distinguishes it in practice.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to the sibling finance_reports_get_collection that fetches report metadata. The agent must infer that this tool is the one that retrieves actual file contents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.