List saved custom reports, both shared and personal, including definitions and last-run status to track reporting activity.
List the account's saved custom reports (shared ones and your own), with their definition and last-run status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the visibility scope (shared + own) and that results carry definition and last-run status, which is useful. However it says nothing about pagination, result caps, ordering, or whether definitions are truncated or expensive to return.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then qualifying scope, then return content. No filler and no redundancy with structured fields.
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 zero params and no output schema, the description must hint at what comes back — and it does (definition, last-run status). Only pagination/result-size behavior is missing, a minor gap for a simple list tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise the description could usefully add, and it correctly implies no filtering arguments are required.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (saved custom reports), and adds scope detail — shared reports plus the caller's own — plus what each entry contains (definition, last-run status). It is distinguishable from run/preview/create siblings by the verb, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
Read-only listing intent is implied but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. In a sibling set crowded with report tools (conduyt_run_report, conduyt_preview_report, conduyt_list_report_schedules, conduyt_report_fields), explicitly routing the agent would have been valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.