Read a report's default options to get the full option dict, then override only the setting you need before running it.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: reports accept a full option dict, not a partial one, which changes how a caller must use the result. It doesn't describe the shape or size of the returned option dict.
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, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the non-obvious full-dict constraint. No padding.
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 a full annotation set and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key usage constraint adequately. The only gap is that it doesn't indicate what the returned options dict looks like or how to use it in a follow-up run_report call.
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% for the single report_id parameter, which the schema already documents with an example. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance for report_id, 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?
The description gives a precise verb (read) and resource (one report's default options), and the phrase 'before running it' implicitly separates it from run_report and list_reports in the sibling set. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing rather than being told.
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?
Clear context for when to call it: before running a report, and specifically when you want to change one setting. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state exclusions, but the workflow condition that selects this tool is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.