Retrieves the list of report filters for a store. Enables viewing and managing filter configurations.
Get report filter list for the given store
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": "GetReportFilters"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a read operation, if it requires authentication, or what side effects (if any) occur. The tool is likely safe and read-only, but this is not stated.
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 very short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary information. It is concise but under-informative, lacking details that would help an agent use the tool correctly.
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 lack of output schema and the ambiguous parameter implication, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns or how it behaves. It is incomplete for a list-fetching operation.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema is sufficient. However, the description misleadingly references 'for the given store' implying a store parameter that does not exist. This adds confusion rather than clarity.
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 the action ('Get') and resource ('report filter list'), and the plural name distinguishes it from the singular 'GetReportFilter' sibling. However, it mentions 'for the given store' but the input schema has no parameters, creating ambiguity about how the store is specified.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetReportFilter' (singular). The only cue is the plural name, but the description does not explain the difference or provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.