report_listList saved three-way match reports with IDs, timestamps, document references, status, and issue counts; paginate up to 100 per call to review exceptions.
List saved report ids, timestamps, document references, status and issue counts. Free on both tiers; paginated, up to 100 reports per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.22.6Does 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 behavioral context beyond that: it is free on both tiers and is paginated with a 100-report ceiling per call, which matters for call planning.
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 compact sentences with no filler, and the return-content information is front-loaded before the pagination caveat. Slightly more could be trimmed, 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned, and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile. It is missing offset/default-limit semantics and any indication of how total result count is surfaced, but for a simple two-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient.
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 description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does. 'Up to 100 reports per call' communicates the limit ceiling, but the offset parameter, the default limit of 20, and the interaction between the two are left entirely to schema inference.
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 resource (saved reports) and enumerates the returned fields (ids, timestamps, document references, status, issue counts), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like report_page or report_export_csv, so it stops short of 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as report_get, report_page, or report_export_csv. The only contextual hint is the pricing note ('Free on both tiers'), which is not selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.