Resize a named report item inside the of an RDL report by updating its width and height. At least one dimension must be provided; unspecified dimensions remain unchanged.
Resize an existing named ReportItem inside . At least one of width / height must be supplied; missing fields are left untouched. Same RDL size-string convention as the position tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully shoulders the transparency burden. It clearly indicates mutation (resizing), but lacks details on error conditions, permissions, or side effects beyond 'left untouched'.
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 sentences with zero wasted words. The verb 'Resize' leads, then constraints and conventions are efficiently stated.
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 moderate complexity and many sibling tools, the description adequately differentiates and explains usage. It references conventions for clarity. No output schema is fine for a mutation tool with simple return.
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 provides parameter names and types but no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning: at least one of width/height must be supplied, and the format follows the same convention as position tools, which compensates for the schema's lack of detail.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Resize an existing named ReportItem inside <Body>') and the scope ('at least one of width / height must be supplied; missing fields are left untouched'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_body_item_position by focusing on size vs position.
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?
Explicitly states that at least one of width/height must be supplied and missing fields are untouched. References the RDL size-string convention for consistency, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_body_item_position.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mafaq229/pbirb-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server