get_endpointFull contract of one endpoint: method, URL, auth, query and header parameters, request body example, example responses (large bodies truncated, full text on the docs page). Accepts the endpoint id from search/list, or 'METHOD /path'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | Endpoint id (e.g. 'ticket-purchase-registration/cart/create-cart') or 'POST /api/shop/cart' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: large response bodies are truncated, with full text only on the docs page — a real trait an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.
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 dense sentence, front-loaded with what is returned, with the truncation caveat and input-format note tightly parenthesized. No filler.
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 carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so by enumerating contract sections plus truncation behavior. It does not describe the envelope/format of the response, a minor gap.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the id-vs-METHOD/path format already documented in the schema description. The description's mention of the id origin adds marginal value, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb+resource (fetches the full contract of one endpoint) and enumerates exactly what that contract contains: method, URL, auth, parameters, body example, responses. It is clearly distinct from list_endpoints/search_docs, though it stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.
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?
It states where the required input comes from ('the endpoint id from search/list, or METHOD /path'), which implies the search-then-fetch workflow. There is no explicit when-not or list of alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.