Read a canonical report by filename or ID through Core identity resolution to inspect persistent project records without manual path lookup.
Read a canonical REPORT through Core identity resolution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename_or_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.5Input schema / properties / filenameRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Report filename or the ``task_id`` the report was\nfiled against.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / filename_or_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "filename"
-]New value: +[
+ "filename_or_id"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv3.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It states only 'read' and an opaque 'Core identity resolution' process, without explaining permissions, resolution behavior, error conditions, or response characteristics.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble. However, the dense jargon in 'canonical REPORT through Core identity resolution' reduces clarity rather than earning its place as useful detail.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin for an agent to know how this tool behaves beyond the bare action. It does not explain what a 'canonical' report is or how identity resolution affects the result.
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 is filename_or_id, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no additional explanation of accepted formats, ID resolution rules, or ambiguity handling. The parameter name itself is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value.
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 clearly identifies a read operation on a REPORT resource, so the basic action is identifiable. However, terms like 'canonical' and 'Core identity resolution' are unexplained jargon, and the description does not differentiate read_report from siblings such as list_reports or read_task.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_reports, read_task, or read_review. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.