Retrieve a report's key metadata, including target, collection time, item count, partial retrieval status, errors, and warnings.
レポートの対象、収集時刻、件数、一部取得、エラー、警告を返す。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| partial | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| report_id | Yes | ||
| asset_count | Yes | ||
| completed_at | Yes | ||
| evidence_count | Yes | ||
| collector_errors | Yes | ||
| vulnerability_count | Yes |
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, so the safe/read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context by mentioning partial retrieval, errors, and warnings, which suggests the response can include non-fatal issues rather than only throwing exceptions. However, since an output schema exists and the description mostly lists return fields, the additional behavioral value is moderate.
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?
A single Japanese sentence that is compact and information-dense. Every listed element contributes to understanding what the tool returns, and there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the low complexity (one required parameter), read-only annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description is close to adequate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on selecting this tool over sibling tools and does not clarify the parameter's role in the description, leaving moderate gaps for an agent to infer.
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 0% and the description does not mention report_id at all. The schema's title 'Report Id' makes the parameter somewhat self-explanatory, but the description misses the opportunity to clarify that this ID identifies which report's summary will be returned.
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 uses a specific verb ('返す' / returns) and delineates a clear resource: a report summary with specific components (target, collection time, count, partial retrieval, errors, warnings). It clearly indicates this is a retrieval operation for one report's summary, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_reports.
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 implies the tool is used when you need a report summary, and the read-only annotation supports safe retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_reports or get_evidence, and it provides no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.