Generate reports with grouping and aggregation for a collection, applying filters and date ranges to summarize data.
Generate reports with grouping and aggregation for a collection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Filter criteria | |
| groupBy | No | Field to group by | |
| dateRange | No | Date range filter | |
| collection | Yes | Collection name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not clarify whether generating a report is read-only, whether it creates a stored artifact, or what kind of response the agent should expect. 'Generate reports' is ambiguous about side effects and output.
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 focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and scope, making it easy for an agent to scan and retain.
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 tool with 4 parameters, a nested dateRange object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain the return format, how grouping and aggregation interact, or any constraints on filter/dateRange values. The agent is left without enough context for reliable invocation.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the notion of aggregation beyond what the schema's groupBy field says, but it leaves filter criteria, date range format, and aggregation behavior underspecified.
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 names a clear verb (Generate), resource (reports for a collection), and core capability (grouping and aggregation). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like baasix_collection_stats or baasix_list_items, which keeps it from 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?
No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over baasix_list_items or baasix_collection_stats, and there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions. The grouping/aggregation hint implies a use case, but the description does not state it directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.