api_index
Index of the Mural API.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
meta-agent-tools
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool is an 'Index' and does not reveal whether invocation returns a list, requires authentication, has side effects, or what the response shape is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded with the key term 'Index.' It contains no filler or repetition, though it leans toward under-specification rather than genuine informational efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool this is nearly minimal, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves an agent unsure what invoking the tool returns and how to interpret 'Index.' A sentence such as 'Returns a listing of available Mural API endpoints and operations' would make it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters whose semantics need explanation. The description does not need to compensate for a parameter documentation gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Index of the Mural API' essentially restates the tool name 'api_index' as a noun phrase. It lacks a clear action verb and does not explain what calling the tool actually does, nor does it differentiate the tool from siblings such as list_mcp_servers or list_listings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no conditions, examples, or exclusions, so an agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources or actions, and descriptions are clear enough to avoid major confusion. The main overlap is between list_listings and list_mcp_servers as registry views, though their scope differs.
Naming Consistency3/5
The set mixes verb_noun names like create_listing and list_comments with noun-style names like api_index, billing, contact, and health. This is readable but not a consistent naming convention across the whole server.
Tool Count5/5
Twelve tools is a reasonable, well-scoped count for a registry-and-commerce server. Each tool has a distinct role, with no obvious bloat or redundancy.
Completeness3/5
Discovery, creation, liking, and commenting are covered, but there are no update or delete operations for listings, nor any comment management beyond listing comments. These are notable lifecycle gaps for a registry-style tool.