report_listList saved duplicate-invoice reports with report IDs, timestamps, and unique candidate counts to review past checks and track results. Supports pagination up to 100 reports per page.
List saved report ids, timestamps and unique candidate counts. Free on both tiers. Up to 100 reports per page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.22.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information: cost across tiers and a page-size ceiling. It does not describe pagination traversal behavior or what ordering to expect, so it neither contradicts nor fully supplements 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return fields, then cost, then pagination limit. No sentence is wasted and nothing is buried.
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 simple paged list with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, the cost model, and the page ceiling, which is most of what an agent needs. The gap is pagination mechanics (how offset interacts with the page limit), which is left implicit.
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 0%, so the two parameters (limit, offset) are only named in the schema. The description reinforces the limit ceiling ('up to 100 reports per page') but says nothing about offset semantics or how to advance pages. Partial compensation, not full.
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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (saved reports) and enumerates exactly what is returned: ids, timestamps, and unique candidate counts. It is not tautological. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not (report_get, report_page, report_export_csv), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.
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?
'Free on both tiers' gives useful selection context, implying this cheap listing is the right entry point before a paid per-report call. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus report_get, report_page, or report_export_csv, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.