Generate a PDF report, such as an invoice, for one or more records and return it as base64. Provide the report name and record IDs to produce the document.
Render a PDF report (e.g. an invoice) for records. Returns base64.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Several record ids | |
| record_id | No | One record id | |
| report_name | Yes | e.g. 'account.report_invoice' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true / destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. It adds one genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations – the base64 return encoding – but says nothing about report availability, size limits, or failure behavior for an invalid report_name.
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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the return format trailing. Nothing to cut.
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 single-required-parameter render tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials and even states the return encoding. However it does not resolve whether 'ids' and 'record_id' are alternatives or combinable, or whether omitting both is legal, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.
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 100%, so the three parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no clarification of the relationship between the two optional id selectors ('ids' vs 'record_id'), which is the one semantic point the schema leaves ambiguous.
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 and resource ('Render a PDF report ... for records') with a concrete example ('e.g. an invoice'), which clearly separates it from the record CRUD and attachment siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming what it is not, but the action 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the only reporting tool and cannot tell from the text whether it is a read-only render or has side effects on stored records.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.