report_getRead a saved supplier invoice duplicate-check report to inspect source records, grouped reasons, and overlap-safe candidate counts; large reports include paging instructions.
Read a saved report with source records, reason groups and overlap-safe candidate counts. Large reports return free paging instructions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.22.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: what the response contains and that oversized reports return paging instructions rather than truncating silently.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler; the payload description is front-loaded and the paging caveat follows as a secondary clause. Every phrase earns its place.
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 read-only tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how large results are handled. The only meaningful gap is guidance on sourcing the required id.
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 coverage is 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It implies the id identifies a saved report but never states that it is a required UUIDv4 or where to obtain it, so the compensation is only partial.
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 (Read) and resource (a saved report) and enumerates the payload (source records, reason groups, overlap-safe candidate counts). This is clearly distinguishable from report_list and report_page, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Read a saved report' plus the hint that large reports return paging instructions, which gestures at report_page. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite that an id must come from report_list, and no stated exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.