Update an existing saved report definition (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update an existing saved report definition (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: title, table, type, field, filter_fields, query, aggregate, group_by, roles | |
| sys_id | Yes | Report sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"Fields to update (title, type, query, field, aggregate, etc.)"New value: +"Allowed fields: title, table, type, field, filter_fields, query, aggregate, group_by, roles"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "aggregate": {},
+ "field": {},
+ "filter_fields": {},
+ "group_by": {},
+ "query": {},
+ "roles": {},
+ "table": {},
+ "title": {},
+ "type": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description's added value is mainly the WRITE_ENABLED=true gate, which is useful. It does not say whether the 'fields' object is a partial patch or a full replacement of the report definition, which is the key behavioral question for this mutation.
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 filler; the prerequisite is placed where it is immediately visible. It is arguably too terse for a nested-object mutation, but nothing is wasted.
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?
For a two-parameter update tool with full schema coverage plus annotations, only the merge/replace semantics and the effect on omitted fields are left unstated. That gap matters for a report definition update but is bounded; no output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is expected.
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% and the nested 'fields' property already enumerates the allowed keys, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no semantic detail (e.g. whether omitted fields are preserved, what 'query' format is accepted) beyond the schema.
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 and resource ('Update an existing saved report definition'), which cleanly separates it from create_report, get_report, list_reports and update_dashboard without naming them. The scope word 'existing' rules out creation.
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 parenthetical '(requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)' gives a real precondition for use, but the description never names an alternative (e.g. create_report vs update_report vs natural_language_update) or says when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.