MCP-Dubai

synthesize_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build structured Markdown reports for MCP-Dubai from named sections and track source freshness with update and review dates. Include all cited domains to keep report freshness verified.

Instructions

Build a structured Markdown report from named sections.

The freshness footer lists only caller-declared source domains with their recorded update and full-review dates. Omitted sources leave report freshness unverified.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Report title.
`sections`	No	List of {heading, body} dicts. Each becomes an H2 section.
`domains_referenced`	No	Knowledge domain names actually used in the report.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1Oct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / domains_referenced

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Knowledge domain names actually used in the report."
+}

First observedv0.4.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: a freshness footer is emitted, it lists only caller-declared domains with update and full-review dates, and omitting sources degrades verification. That is meaningful output-side behavior disclosure.

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?

Two short paragraphs, purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, with the second paragraph supplying consequence detail. No filler or restated boilerplate; every sentence carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, inputs, and the notable footer side-effect, leaving only minor items (e.g., section formatting constraints, null-section behavior) unstated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'caller-declared source domains' drive the freshness footer and that omissions leave freshness unverified, which gives the agent a reason to populate domains_referenced rather than leave its null default.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (Build) plus resource (structured Markdown report) and scope (from named sections). An agent knows exactly what it produces. There is no close sibling producing reports, so the lack of explicit sibling differentiation is a minor gap rather than a defect.

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?

Usage is only implied: the footer paragraph tells the agent that omitting source domains leaves report freshness unverified, which indirectly signals that domains_referenced should be supplied. There is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' routing, but no sibling overlaps enough to make that critical.

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

Deploy Server