Retrieve a report's evidence ledger—source URLs, fetch timestamps, SHA-256 hashes, and raw payload paths—to verify findings against originals and check payload integrity.
读取报告的证据台账：来源、URL、抓取时间、sha256、原始载荷路径。
复核时先看这里：拿 URL 回原站核对，或比对 raw 目录里的原始载荷哈希。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 读取 makes clear that it is a read operation and the field list reveals the shape of the returned ledger. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or behavior when a report has no evidence, which is thin for a zero-annotation tool, though the low-risk read nature limits the damage.
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 lines, both front-loaded and purposeful: line one enumerates contents, line two directs the verification workflow. No filler whatsoever.
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 describing the fields is somewhat redundant though useful as a preview. For a single-parameter, read-only tool, the definition is minimally adequate, but the unclear report_id semantics and the absence of any empty-result or error behavior leave gaps.
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?
The only parameter, report_id, has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The phrase '报告的证据台账' only weakly implies that report_id selects the report, with no format, sourcing hint (e.g., from list_reports), or behavior for an unknown id.
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 (读取/read) and resource (报告的证据台账 / a report's evidence ledger), then enumerates the returned fields: source, URL, fetch time, sha256, raw payload path. This makes it clearly distinct in scope from get_report or list_reports, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Gives clear usage context and sequencing: 'during review, look here first' establishes this as the entry point of an evidence-verification workflow, and it tells the agent what to do with the data (re-check the URL at the source, compare the raw payload hash). It does not, however, state when to prefer get_report or probe_sources instead, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.