Run a saved custom report by ID to retrieve paginated rows, totals, metrics, chart data, and optional two-dimensional grouped results for contacts or deals.
Run a saved custom report: a page of rows (per_page ≤ 500), the total, the metric, the chart data (groupBy) and, on contacts/deals with groupBy2, the two-dimensional grouped rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Saved report id (from conduyt_list_reports) | |
| page | No | ||
| per_page | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful context about the response payload, including paginated rows, totals, metrics, chart data, and conditional two-dimensional grouped rows, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, permissions, or error handling.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is dense but efficient, packing the action and return shape into a compact statement.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job explaining the return payload. However, it leaves gaps around parameter semantics and when to use this tool instead of neighboring report tools, so it is only minimally complete.
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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions the per_page cap, but that largely repeats the schema maximum, and it does not explain the page parameter or add meaning beyond the id schema description.
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 clear verb and resource: "Run a saved custom report." It also previews the returned data, making the operation distinct from generic report creation or listing. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like conduyt_preview_report or conduyt_export_report, which keeps it from a 5.
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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as conduyt_preview_report, conduyt_export_report, or conduyt_list_reports. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.