list_reportsList SAS Visual Analytics reports using optional name filters and limit controls. Find available reports quickly for inspection or further processing.
List Visual Analytics reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum reports to return (default 50). | |
| filter_name | No | Optional name filter (substring match). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Output schema / properties / result / items / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / properties / result / items / typeAdded value: +"object"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., access scope, ordering, pagination), but it does not contradict the annotations.
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 with no redundant words. It is minimal, though it skips information that might be useful; still, this is concise under-specification rather than verbosity.
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?
The tool is simple, parameters are fully documented in the schema, an output schema exists, and annotations cover side-effect safety. The main missing element is usage guidance relative to sibling report tools, but that gap is already reflected in usage_guidelines. The description is adequate for a safe read-only call, though not rich.
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 100%: both 'limit' and 'filter_name' have explicit descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a named resource class ('Visual Analytics reports'). This clearly distinguishes from siblings such as get_report, export_report, create_report, and other list_* tools that target different resource types.
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 guidance on when to choose list_reports over sibling tools like get_report, export_report, or describe_report_objects. The description is purely descriptive and leaves selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.