Read a Gramps report's default options before running it, then override only the settings you need.
Read one report's default options before running it.
Reports take a full option dict, not a partial one, so the way to change a single setting is to read these defaults and override that key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes | Report id, e.g. 'ancestor_report'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: reports take a full option dict, not a partial one, so this call is the way to change a single setting. It does not cover return shape or auth needs, but the bar is lower with annotations present.
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: the first front-loads the tool's action, the second explains the rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.
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 low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description gives enough to select and invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the return shape (option keys and values), and no output schema exists to compensate.
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 sole parameter `report_id` is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?
The description states a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("one report's default options") and clarifies the temporal context ("before running it"). This distinguishes it from sibling `run_report` by purpose, and from `list_reports` by scope.
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?
It clearly states when to use it ("before running it") and explains the workflow: read defaults, then override a single key. It does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.