mcp-resilland

list_reports

List feasibility reports owned by your API key, with optional filters for language, scope, and report status.

Instructions

List feasibility reports owned by this API key's user.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_reports"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	max rows (1–200, default 50)
`offset`	No	pagination offset
`language`	No	filter by 'en' \| 'tr' \| 'ru' \| 'uz'
`scope_kind`	No	'parcel' \| 'polygon' \| 'oblast' \| 'program'
`report_status`	No	'final' (default, hides interrupted drafts), 'draft', or 'all'	final

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds ownership scoping ('owned by this API key's user'), which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose the default report_status filtering (final only), pagination behavior, or other side effects. Some details exist in the schema, but the description carries the burden and only partially fulfills it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no irrelevant details. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description covers the essential ownership constraint. It could mention the default status filter or explicitly reference sibling tools, but the tool is relatively simple and the description is sufficient for basic understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the specific action 'List' and the resource 'feasibility reports', with an ownership qualifier. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_report (single report) and generate_feasibility_report (creation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage as a listing endpoint for the current user's reports, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like get_report or list_parcels. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server