Sixteen years of API research as MCP tools — stories, areas, governance blocks & services
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.2/5 across 56 of 56 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, reducing ambiguity. However, some overlap exists between search tools like 'find_posts' and 'search_api_evangelist', though they target different scopes (stories vs. unified search). Overall, an agent can reasonably differentiate them.
The majority of tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., find_areas, get_post), but several use noun_noun or inconsistent prefixes (e.g., api_coverage, company_gaps, insights_adoption). This inconsistency can confuse pattern recognition, though the pattern is still readable.
With 56 tools, the server is overloaded for a typical MCP context. While the domain is broad, the sheer number risks agent confusion and selection errors. Calibration suggests 25+ tools are excessive, and this server far exceeds that threshold.
The tool set covers a wide range of API governance, search, analysis, and generation tasks. There are no obvious dead ends for navigating the API Evangelist network, though some areas (e.g., direct API creation) are intentionally out of scope. Minor consolidation could improve efficiency.
api_coverageAInspectMeasure how much of an API description your governance actually inspects — coverage by section, each rule's reach, and the rules that match nothing. Like test coverage, one altitude up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the tool inspects and measures coverage, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it modifies state, or any rate limits. Without annotations, the burden is on the description, which is partially met.
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?
The description is two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the verb 'Measure'. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a solid overview. It explains what is measured and the analogy, but could explicitly mention the return format or typical usage examples for completeness.
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?
The input schema has one required parameter 'document' with 100% coverage. The description adds context by defining the parameter as an 'API description' and relates it to governance inspection, adding meaning beyond the schema's empty description.
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 clearly states the tool measures governance coverage of API descriptions, using a test coverage analogy. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like governance_report or validate_api by focusing specifically on coverage analysis.
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?
The description provides an analogy ('Like test coverage, one altitude up') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like governance_report or validate_api. There is no exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
api_scorecardCInspectScore an API's maturity 0-100 with a letter grade across design, governance coverage, documentation, and (from an apis.json) discoverability, agent-readiness, and operations. Pass your own ruleset — a score against rules you never adopted means little.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool reads an API and produces a score and grade, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, authorization needs, or rate limits.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. The second sentence provides context about rulesets, but could be more integrated with the first.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a moderately complex scoring tool, the description is incomplete: it does not specify input format (is it an API spec, apis.json?), output details, or the scoring methodology. Important context is missing for an agent to use it reliably.
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?
The input schema lists 'document' as required but with no description in the schema. The description mentions 'Pass your own ruleset' but does not clarify the 'document' parameter's role or structure, leaving ambiguity despite the 100% schema coverage claim (which seems erroneous).
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 clearly states it scores API maturity 0-100 with letter grade across multiple dimensions, specifying the verb 'score' and the resource 'API maturity'. It differentiates from sibling 'api_coverage' by focusing on maturity rather than coverage.
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?
The description hints that one should pass their own ruleset for meaningful results, implying use when custom rules are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
apply_overlayAInspectApply an OpenAPI Overlay to a document and report what each action matched. Use it for deprecation and migration choreography without forking the contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does 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 states the tool applies an overlay and reports matches but does not disclose side effects, destructive potential, authentication needs, or rate limits. The phrase 'without forking the contract' hints at non-modification but is not explicit.
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?
The description is two sentences that efficiently state the action and the use case. No superfluous words.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and an incomplete input schema, the description lacks important details about return values, overlay format, and example usage. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema requires 'document' and 'overlay' but defines no properties. The description mentions applying an overlay to a document but does not explain the format or constraints of these parameters. Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.
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 clearly states the tool applies an OpenAPI Overlay to a document and reports what each action matched, with a specific use case for deprecation and migration. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on validation, scoring, or other tasks.
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?
The description explicitly mentions use for deprecation and migration choreography without forking the contract, providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or compare to alternatives, which would strengthen guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
audit_pipelineBInspectScore a repository's Spectral CI setup against an 8-point maturity rubric and return a prioritized punch-list. Pass a public repo ("owner/name") or files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It only mentions input and output, lacking transparency for a tool that might access external repositories.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and output. Every segment earns its place, with no wasted words.
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?
The description is incomplete given no output schema and no annotations. It does not specify the structure of the punch-list, the definition of 'files', or any prerequisites. The mismatch between schema and description adds confusion.
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?
The input schema is empty with additionalProperties true, but the description mentions parameters `repo` and `files`. This adds meaning beyond the schema but is vague on formats and relationships. Schema coverage is 100% due to no parameters, so description compensates partially.
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 clearly states the tool scores a repository's Spectral CI setup against an 8-point maturity rubric and returns a prioritized punch-list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are diverse and unrelated.
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 provides context for input ('Pass a public repo or files') but does not specify when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
certify_apiBInspectIssue a tamper-evident governance certificate attesting an API passed a named ruleset at a profile threshold. A SHA-256 fingerprint lets anyone re-verify it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'tamper-evident' and 'SHA-256 fingerprint' for re-verification, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., persistent storage), required permissions, or what happens if the API is not found or fails the ruleset. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the core purpose and a key feature (SHA-256 for re-verification). It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters), but it avoids fluff and front-loads the action.
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?
Given the complexity of issuing a governance certificate and the lack of output schema, the description omits critical details: what the 'api' parameter refers to (ID? endpoint?), how 'named ruleset' and 'profile threshold' are provided, and what the tool returns (e.g., certificate content or URL). It is not sufficient for safe 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?
The input schema declares a required parameter 'api' but has empty properties and additionalProperties: true, giving no structural clues. The description does not clarify what 'api' means or what other parameters might be accepted. Despite 100% schema description coverage (likely a misreport), the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which itself is unhelpful.
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 clearly states the tool issues a tamper-evident governance certificate, specifying it attests an API passed a named ruleset at a profile threshold and includes a SHA-256 fingerprint for re-verification. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like verify_certificate.
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?
The description implies the tool is used to certify an API after passing a ruleset, but it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned despite a sibling tool verify_certificate existing. The usage context is inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
classify_api_fieldsAInspectInventory the PII, secret, and sensitive fields an OpenAPI exposes, across parameters and request/response schemas. Run this before exposing an API to agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The description only implies it is a safety check.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the usage instruction is concise and actionable.
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?
Given no output schema and one implicit parameter, the description lacks details about the return value (the inventory), how to interpret results, and the exact format of the input document. More guidance would be beneficial for a tool of this complexity.
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?
The schema coverage is 100% but the properties object is empty, leaving the 'document' parameter undefined. The description implies the input is an OpenAPI spec, adding some meaning, but does not explicitly map the parameter or describe its structure.
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 clearly states the tool inventories PII, secret, and sensitive fields from an OpenAPI specification's parameters and schemas. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like validate_api or certify_api.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Run this before exposing an API to agents,' providing a clear use case context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
code_snippetsBInspectGenerate runnable curl, JavaScript, and Python samples for every operation, with path params filled in and a realistic body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions parameters are filled and body is realistic, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. It is adequate but lacks depth for a complete behavioral picture.
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 sentence that conveys the core functionality efficiently. It is front-loaded with the main action. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing languages), it is not verbose and contains 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?
The description does not specify the output format (e.g., list of code blocks, file paths, etc.) or how multiple operations are handled. With no output schema, the agent lacks clarity on what to expect. The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description falls short of fully documenting its behavior and return structure.
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?
The input schema has a required 'document' parameter with no properties defined (additionalProperties true). Schema description coverage is reported as 100%, so the description adds value by explaining that parameters and body are filled. However, the structure or format of the document remains unclear, so it provides only marginal additional meaning.
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 clearly states the tool generates runnable curl, JavaScript, and Python samples for 'every operation', with path params filled and realistic body. It specifies the verb and resource ('generate ... samples') and distinguishes from siblings like 'mock_payloads' by focusing on runnable code, though not 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mock_payloads, apply_overlay). No mention of prerequisites or context such as needing an API description document. The bare description implies usage but does not provide clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
company_gapsDInspectA company's weakest investment dimensions — where it is thin. Pro.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the output is 'weakest investment dimensions' and includes 'Pro' (possibly indicating access level), but does not describe side effects, auth requirements, or data freshness.
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?
The description is too brief, providing only a noun phrase and the word 'Pro'. While concise in length, it lacks substantive information and does not efficiently convey required context.
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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description must explain both input semantics and result structure. It fails to do so, leaving the agent unable to determine valid inputs or expected output format.
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?
The single parameter 'slug' has 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what a slug represents (e.g., company identifier), how to format it, or where to find it.
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 it returns 'a company's weakest investment dimensions', but lacks an action verb like 'get' or 'list'. The phrase 'Pro' is ambiguous. Compared to sibling tools like 'find_company_insights' and 'insights_dimensions', it does not clearly distinguish its specific purpose.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'find_company_insights' or 'insights_dimensions'). There is no context about prerequisites, input slug meaning, or expected use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
deprecation_postureCInspectReport every deprecated operation and whether it actually announces a sunset. The ones that go quiet are the ones that break consumers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but doesn't explicitly state side effects, output format, or safety. Only hints at the action (reporting) without behavioral details.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. The key point is front-loaded ('Report every deprecated operation...'). Each sentence adds distinct value.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate but does not. It omits input description, output format, and error conditions. The tool's behavior remains underspecified.
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?
The input schema has a required 'document' parameter with no described properties (additionalProperties true). Schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description does not explain what 'document' is or how to provide it, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states it reports deprecated operations and whether they announce a sunset, using specific verbs ('report', 'announces'). The resource is implied (deprecated operations). However, it doesn't mention the input source (the 'document' parameter), which slightly diminishes clarity.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'audit_pipeline' or 'diff_api_versions'. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
diff_api_versionsBInspectCompare two OpenAPI versions and classify every change as breaking, non-breaking, or an addition — at path, operation, parameter, request-body, and response granularity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool classifies changes but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as being read-only, performance implications, authentication needs, or what side effects (if any) occur.
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?
One sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise by removing the enumeration of granularities (path, operation, etc.) or placing it in a separate line.
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?
The description covers the high-level purpose and granularity but lacks details on output format, return values, or how the classification is structured. Given complexity (multiple granularities) and no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
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 reported at 100%, but the schema itself is malformed (properties empty with additionalProperties true) and required parameters 'old' and 'new' are not defined in properties. The description adds no information about these parameters; however, per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool compares two OpenAPI versions and classifies changes as breaking, non-breaking, or addition at multiple granularities. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('OpenAPI versions'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'api_coverage' or 'api_scorecard'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Leaves the agent to infer usage without explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
export_agent_rulesCInspectTurn a governance ruleset into agent-native guidance — an AGENTS.md block, a system-prompt set, a per-rule remediation pack, and a digest — so agents follow the rules while authoring, not after linting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the conversion process but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only or destructive. The lack of behavioral detail impairs safe invocation.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action. It lists key outputs without unnecessary detail. However, if conciseness sacrifices essential information like parameter description, it edges toward under-specification.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (multi-output conversion) and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the outputs are and how to interpret them. It does not describe the return format. Combined with missing parameter semantics, the description is incomplete for effective use.
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?
The input schema has one required parameter 'ruleset' but properties is empty (additionalProperties: true), meaning the schema provides no structure. The description does not mention the parameter or clarify its format, type, or expected content. With no parameter guidance from either schema or description, the agent cannot reliably construct a valid input.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: converting a governance ruleset into multiple agent-native artifacts like AGENTS.md block, system-prompt set, etc. It uses a specific verb 'Turn' and identifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like govern_estate or governance_report, which may have overlapping purposes.
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?
The description implies a use case ('so agents follow the rules while authoring, not after linting') but does not specify when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The guidance is minimal and left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_areasBInspectThe 77 focused topic areas of the network (agents, gateways, security, …), each a subsite with its own catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free text over title, summary, tags, and body. | |
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | Tag slugs; match any by default. | |
| limit | No | ||
| match | No | any | |
| fields | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the nature of the objects (topic areas, subsites) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only/read-write, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with missing data.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key number (77) and examples, making it highly concise and efficient.
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?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover parameter usage, return values, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
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 only 29% (only 2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Parameters like sort, page, limit, fields, match are left completely unexplained.
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 clearly states that the tool finds the 77 focused topic areas of the network, with examples (agents, gateways, security), and notes each is a subsite with its own catalog. This distinguishes it from sibling find_* tools.
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?
The description implicitly indicates this is for locating topic areas, and sibling tool names (e.g., find_tags, find_tools) suggest when to use alternatives. However, no explicit when-not or alternatives are stated, so it doesn't achieve a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_building_blocksCInspectSearch the governance building blocks by type: guidance (177), rules (617), policies (283), standards (432), strategies (75), schema (11), properties (790), experiences (46), lifecycle (29).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free text over title, summary, tags, and body. | |
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | Tag slugs; match any by default. | |
| type | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| match | No | any | |
| fields | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions searching by type and lists counts, but does not describe pagination, sorting, filtering behavior, or that it returns a list of building blocks. The agent lacks info on result structure and side effects.
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?
The description is a single sentence listing types and counts, which is concise and front-loads the key purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured without losing conciseness.
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?
Given 8 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and the tool's complexity as a search function, the description is insufficient. It omits pagination, sorting, match logic, and field selection, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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 only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter details beyond listing allowable types. It does not explain 'q', 'page', 'sort', 'limit', 'match', or 'fields', leaving the agent to guess their meaning.
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 clearly states the tool searches governance building blocks by type, listing all types with counts. It identifies the specific resource (governance building blocks) but does not differentiate it from other search sibling tools like find_papers or find_posts, which also search by similar parameters.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_company_insightsCInspectBrowse profiled companies (Fortune 1000 + API providers) by name; ranked by technology-readiness signal. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Only behavioral disclosure is that it is free and likely read-only (browse). No mention of pagination, rate limits, or behavior on empty results. Description carries full burden but adds minimal context.
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?
Very concise single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. However, could be slightly more structured (e.g., list parameters) without becoming verbose.
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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. Lacks details on return format, sorting, filtering beyond name, or how ranking works. Incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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 coverage 0% and description does not explain parameters. Implicitly maps q to 'by name', but no details on page or limit. Parameter semantics are entirely missing.
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?
Description clearly states verb (browse/find), resource (profiled companies), and specifics (Fortune 1000 + API providers, ranked by technology-readiness signal). It is distinct from siblings like find_tags or get_company_insight.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_company_insight. Only mentions it's free, but no context on prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_conversationsCInspectAPI Evangelist Conversations — recorded discussions with API practitioners (guest, company, YouTube/SoundCloud links).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free text over title, summary, tags, and body. | |
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | Tag slugs; match any by default. | |
| limit | No | ||
| match | No | any | |
| fields | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose but fails to mention read-only nature, pagination, sorting, or any side effects. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, it could efficiently add more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
No output schema or annotations; description is too sparse for 7 parameters. Lacks details on search behavior, result structure, and constraints, leaving agents underinformed.
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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters described). The description adds no parameter-level information, failing to compensate for undocumented fields. Agents get minimal help understanding parameters like sort, match, or fields.
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 clearly states it finds conversations, specifically recorded discussions with API practitioners, including guest and company details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_videos or find_posts by focusing on conversations, though no explicit differentiation.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_videos or find_posts. Agents have no context on which tool to select for searching conversations vs other content types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_papersCInspectAPI Evangelist white papers — deep dives distilled from sixteen years of research, with outlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free text over title, summary, tags, and body. | |
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | Tag slugs; match any by default. | |
| limit | No | ||
| match | No | any | |
| fields | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions 'outlines' hinting at result content but does not disclose pagination, sorting default, filtering behavior, or any side effects. The behavioral profile is unclear.
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?
The description is a single sentence and concise, but it sacrifices clarity. It is front-loaded with the resource type but lacks structure to convey key information efficiently.
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?
The tool has 7 parameters (most undocumented), no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides minimal context, insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without additional knowledge.
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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific information. It does not explain how parameters like 'q', 'tags', 'sort', or 'fields' interact, leaving the agent to infer from schema alone.
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 identifies the resource as 'API Evangelist white papers' and implies search functionality through the tool name. It adds context about the content ('deep dives distilled from sixteen years of research, with outlines'), but does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'search' or 'find'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_paper by mentioning white papers collection.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., find_posts, find_videos, get_paper), the description provides no criteria for tool selection, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_postsBInspectSearch or browse 5,100+ API Evangelist stories (2010–present); filter by year or tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free text over title, summary, tags, and body. | |
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | Tag slugs; match any by default. | |
| year | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| match | No | any | |
| fields | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses basic filtering capabilities but does not mention behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or response structure. Minimal transparency beyond the purpose.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence of 15 words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant information. Every word is necessary.
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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It covers only the core purpose and two filters, leaving out details on pagination, sorting, field selection, and expected return values.
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 only 25%, with only 'q' and 'tags' having schema descriptions. The description mentions filtering by 'year' and 'tags', adding some value, but fails to explain seven other parameters (page, sort, limit, match, fields, year is mentioned but not detailed). This does not adequately compensate for the low coverage.
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 clearly states the verb (search/browse), the resource (API Evangelist stories), and the scope (5,100+ stories from 2010-present). It distinguishes itself from sibling find_* tools by focusing specifically on 'posts' (stories).
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?
The description implies usage for searching or browsing stories but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_servicesBInspectThe services API Evangelist offers teams and customers — API strategy, governance, discovery, and evangelism engagements by Kin Lane. The front door to working with API Evangelist. (For the third-party vendor registry, use find_solutions.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free text over title, summary, tags, and body. | |
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | Tag slugs; match any by default. | |
| limit | No | ||
| match | No | any | |
| fields | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.
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?
Description is concise (single sentence plus parenthetical) and front-loaded with purpose. Could be more structured but avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits essential details like pagination, sorting, field selection, and return format. It is inadequate for an agent to effectively invoke the tool.
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 only 29% (2 out of 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, failing to compensate for the low coverage and leaving meaning of most parameters undocumented.
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?
Description clearly states the tool finds services offered by API Evangelist, listing specific categories (strategy, governance, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool find_solutions for vendor registry.
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?
Provides explicit guidance to use find_solutions for third-party vendor registry, giving context on when this tool is appropriate as the 'front door' to API Evangelist services. Does not mention other alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_solutionsCInspectThe solutions registry — 740+ third-party API services and tools (gateways, portals, testing, monitoring, …) ranked by adoption across the companies API Evangelist tracks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free text over title, summary, tags, and body. | |
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | Tag slugs; match any by default. | |
| limit | No | ||
| match | No | any | |
| fields | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state that the tool is read-only, describe pagination, or mention rate limits. The description only provides a high-level overview of the registry content.
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?
The description is concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices important details. It is appropriately sized for a brief overview but could be restructured to front-load key search capabilities.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain search behavior, return format, pagination limits, or how to use filters effectively.
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 only 29%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions, leaving the agent to guess how 'q', 'tags', or 'fields' affect results.
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 identifies the tool as searching a registry of third-party API services and tools, but 'solutions' overlaps with sibling tools like 'find_tools' and 'find_services' without clear differentiation. The purpose is clear but not distinct from alternatives.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., find_tools, find_services). The description only states the content of the registry, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_tagsAInspectBrowse and rank the network tag taxonomy — every subject tag across 16k+ docs, by frequency or breadth (how many content types use it). Search with q. The map of what API Evangelist covers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns tags sorted by count or breadth, explains breadth as 'how many content types use it', and implies read-only browsing. It does not mention pagination behavior, but the schema covers page/limit, so overall transparency is good.
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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose, then explain search and provide a helpful metaphor. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality and sorting options. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., what fields each tag includes) and pagination behavior, which would aid an agent in using the results.
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 add meaning. It explains 'q' as a search filter and 'sort' with its enum values, including the meaning of 'breadth'. However, page and limit are not described beyond their schema defaults and constraints.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'browse and rank' and resource 'network tag taxonomy', clarifying it covers all subject tags across 16k+ docs with sorting by frequency or breadth. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_areas or find_building_blocks.
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?
The description states 'Search with q' implying use for searching, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_tag for single tags, search_api_evangelist for general queries). No when-not-to-use information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_toolsBInspectThe open-source tooling registry — 400+ tools in use across the companies API Evangelist tracks, each with adoption counts and technology-radar placement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free text over title, summary, tags, and body. | |
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | Tag slugs; match any by default. | |
| limit | No | ||
| match | No | any | |
| fields | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only describes the data content (adoption counts, radar placement). It does not mention that the tool performs a read-only search, any authentication or rate limitations, pagination behavior beyond parameter defaults, or the nature of the response. The lack of behavioral transparency leaves agents unaware of key operational expectations.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key features (number of tools, adoption counts, radar placement). Every word serves to inform the agent, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient for complete understanding. It does not explain how parameters interact, what the return format looks like, or how to effectively narrow searches. Complex query options like 'match' and 'fields' remain unexplained, making the description inadequate for precise agent 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 only 29%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Only the 'q' and 'tags' parameters have descriptions in the schema; others like 'page', 'limit', 'sort', 'match', and 'fields' are left undocumented. The description does not compensate for this gap, forcing agents to rely solely on parameter types and enum values without context on their effect.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a registry for open-source tools, specifying it contains 400+ tools with adoption counts and technology-radar placement. It distinctly describes the resource and action (finding tools in the registry), distinguishing it from other 'find_*' siblings that deal with different entities like areas, posts, or services.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling 'find_*' tools, the description does not differentiate usage contexts or explain when searching the tool registry is appropriate versus other registries. Users are left to infer from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_videosCInspectThe API Evangelist video library — interviews and discussions from across the API space, searchable by transcript.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free text over title, summary, tags, and body. | |
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | Tag slugs; match any by default. | |
| limit | No | ||
| match | No | any | |
| fields | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations (0%), the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates 'searchable by transcript', omitting details like pagination behavior (page/limit), sorting, field selection, or error handling. The agent lacks critical behavioral context for correct invocation.
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?
At 15 words, the description is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informativeness—for a 7-parameter tool, brevity becomes under-specification. It earns its sentence length but could convey more key details without being bloated.
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?
Given no output schema, zero annotations, and 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify return format, result structure, or how parameters like 'fields', 'sort', and 'match' affect output. The agent lacks enough information to fully understand tool behavior.
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 low (29%). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema (partially) provides. It does not explain the 'tags', 'match', 'fields', or 'sort' parameters, failing to compensate for the schema's gaps.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching a video library of API interviews and discussions by transcript. It explicitly names the resource ('video library') and the search capability, distinguishing it from siblings focused on other content types (e.g., conversations, papers).
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'find_conversations', 'find_papers') or specify any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent receives no guidance on selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_vocabularyCInspectThe API vocabulary — thousands of resources, actions, personas, domains, schemas, and tags extracted from the API landscape. Filter by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free text over title, summary, tags, and body. | |
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | Tag slugs; match any by default. | |
| limit | No | ||
| match | No | any | |
| fields | No | ||
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'Filter by category', ignoring pagination, sorting, match modes, or output format. The agent learns little about side effects (likely read-only) or constraints beyond what the schema defines.
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?
Single sentence is efficient, front-loading the tool's scope. However, it omits critical details that could be included without bloating (e.g., a brief note on pagination or match logic).
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 8 parameters (0 required) and no output schema, the description fails to cover pagination, sorting, match behavior, fields selection, or return format. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without external knowledge.
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 only 25% (q and tags have descriptions). The overall description adds no parameter explanation beyond 'Filter by category', which maps to the category enum. It does not clarify sort, match, page, limit, fields, or tags usage.
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 the tool covers 'the API vocabulary' and lists content types (resources, actions, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling find_* tools that target specific subdomains (e.g., find_areas, find_building_blocks). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'search' or 'list', slightly obscuring the action.
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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description implies generic filtering but does not help an agent decide, e.g., when to use find_vocabulary vs. find_tags. Exclusions and context are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
forge_mcp_toolsBInspectFrom an OpenAPI, forge an MCP server design, per-operation tools, Agent Skills, an enriched OpenAPI, a server.json, and apis.json properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It lists generated artifacts but does not disclose whether the tool modifies existing data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The action 'forge' implies creation, but lacks depth.
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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's function without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key action and output list.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (generating multiple artifacts from an OpenAPI) and lack of output schema, the description partially covers what to expect. However, it omits details about the required input format, error conditions, and differentiation from similar sibling tools like 'validate_api' or 'apply_overlay'.
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?
The input schema has one required parameter 'document' with no description (properties empty) and the description does not explain what 'document' represents. Although context claims 100% schema coverage, the actual schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'forge' and clearly lists the outputs: MCP server design, per-operation tools, Agent Skills, enriched OpenAPI, server.json, and apis.json properties. None of the sibling tools have a similar purpose, so it is well-distinguished.
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?
The description does not provide any guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is purely declarative about what the tool does, without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
gate_agent_contextCInspectChoose which operations and fields an API exposes to agents and emit a governed Tyk OpenAPI, an MCP tool manifest, and a Spectral ruleset with PII and secret checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'emit' outputs, implying a generation action, but does not indicate whether it is a read-only operation, requires authentication, or has side effects (e.g., creating files or altering state). The description does not cover safety or destructive potential.
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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action and outputs. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. No unnecessary words are present.
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?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and a free-form input schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected input format, the behavior of the tool, or what the outputs contain. For a tool that generates multiple artifacts, more context is needed for correct 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?
The input schema has no defined properties and allows additional properties, but the description adds no guidance on what the input object should contain. It mentions 'operations and fields' but does not specify format, structure, or examples. Since the schema coverage is effectively 100% (no defined params), the description fails to compensate for the open-ended schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Choose which operations and fields an API exposes to agents' and 'emit' specific outputs. The verb 'choose' and resource 'operations and fields' are specific, and the tool's function is distinct from siblings, many of which are retrieval or analysis tools. However, the description could be more precise about how the input specifies these choices.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not the appropriate usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_agent_descriptorBInspectGenerate an API's llms.txt and an AGENTS.md consumption contract — base URL, auth, the operation table, deprecated operations to avoid, and usage rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It describes the output but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the tool is read-only or modifies data. The term 'Generate' implies creation but lacks clarity on idempotency or resource impact.
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, concise sentence that frontloads the main action and lists key content. Every word earns its place with 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?
The description explains the tool's output in moderate detail but omits input requirements and broader context (e.g., how the API is specified). Given the lack of output schema, more completeness is needed for an agent to use it correctly. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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?
The schema has zero parameters but allows additional properties. The description fails to explain what these properties are or how to specify the API. This omission leaves the agent without necessary input guidance, despite the baseline expectation for zero parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's function: generating an API's llms.txt and AGENTS.md with specific contents (base URL, auth, operation table, deprecated operations, usage rules). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like api_coverage or export_agent_rules.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. The description does not indicate scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_areaBInspectOne topic area with its related-area graph resolved — walk the network from here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or limitations beyond the basic purpose.
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?
The description is short and to the point, but the phrase 'walk the network from here' is somewhat vague, reducing clarity slightly.
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 and one undocumented parameter, the description should explain what 'related-area graph' entails or the return format, which it does not.
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?
The single parameter 'slug' has no description in schema or description text; the description adds no meaning about what slug is or how to format it.
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 clearly states it returns one topic area with its related-area graph, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'find_areas' which likely lists areas.
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?
The description implies usage when you need a single area and its network, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_building_blockAInspectOne building block by type + slug; include=["content"] returns the full body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| include | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that including 'content' returns full body, but does not describe default return structure, error behavior, or other nuances. Without annotations, carries moderate burden.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with core purpose, no redundant words. Excellent conciseness.
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?
Adequate for a simple retrieval tool with three params and no output schema. Covers essential lookup and optional full body, but lacks default response details.
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?
Adds meaning to parameters: slug and type as lookup keys, include as content trigger. Since schema has 0% coverage, this compensation is valuable, though default response is unspecified.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves a single building block by type and slug, distinguishing it from sibling 'find_building_blocks' which implies multiple results.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_building_blocks'. The description only states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_company_insightCInspectFull demand-side profile for one company: 40-dimension readiness, adopted stack, per-quarter history. Pro.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only describes what the tool returns, not any behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The term 'Pro' is vague and uninformative.
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?
The description is very concise, using a single sentence with a colon-separated list. However, it lacks detail that could be added without significant bloat.
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 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the return format, prerequisites, or usage. It is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
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?
The only parameter, 'slug', has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not explain what a slug is or how to obtain it. The description adds no value for parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the tool returns a 'full demand-side profile for one company' and lists specific elements (40-dimension readiness, adopted stack, per-quarter history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that might provide partial or different perspectives.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_area or company_gaps. The description does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_contactBInspectEvery way to reach API Evangelist — email, contact form, newsletter, GitHub, social channels, and postal mail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether the result is static, cached, or requires authentication. For a zero-parameter tool, more context on the nature of the output would help.
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?
Single sentence that conveys the purpose efficiently. Front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words.
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?
Description is adequate for a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, but it doesn't specify the format of the returned contact methods (e.g., list of strings). Slightly more detail would improve completeness.
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?
Zero parameters, baseline score of 4 as per instructions. Schema coverage is 100%, so no additional parameter meaning is needed.
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 clearly states the tool returns contact methods for API Evangelist, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('contact'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_area, get_tag) by focusing on contact info.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_api_evangelist. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_conversationBInspectOne conversation with guest detail and media links; include=["content"] returns the writeup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| include | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that include=['content'] returns the writeup, and implies the operation is read-only. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects.
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?
Single sentence front-loading the purpose. No redundant information, but could be more structured by separating core behavior from parameter details.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and partial parameter coverage, the description provides minimal context. It leaves ambiguity about the format of guest detail and media links. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the include parameter's effect (returns writeup), but does not describe the slug parameter. This adds some value but not complete.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single conversation with guest detail and media links. It mentions the include parameter for content, which differentiates it from other get_* tools like get_post or get_area. However, it could be more explicit about the resource context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_conversations. It does not mention prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_feedsBInspectThe static machine-readable feeds every network site publishes (JSON, APIs.json, zero-auth) — the no-key alternative to this API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the feeds are static and require no authentication ('zero-auth'), which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it omits other behavioral traits such as rate limits, idempotency, or whether the feed content is cached. The transparency is moderate but incomplete.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with key information. While concise, it could benefit from a second sentence to clarify output format.
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 zero-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and its relationship to the broader API. It could be more complete by specifying whether it includes all feeds or a subset, but it meets minimum viability.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about the feeds' nature (static, no-key) that goes beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is no parameter documentation burden.
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 clearly states the tool returns static machine-readable feeds (JSON, APIs.json, zero-auth) and positions it as a no-key alternative. However, it does not specify whether it returns a list of available feeds or the actual feed content, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling 'get_*' tools, it fails to differentiate use cases or mention when a key-based alternative is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_guidance_sectionCInspectOne editorial guidance section as a list: history, technology, business, politics, governance, or evangelism — the six lenses API Evangelist organizes guidance through.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| section | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. It only states the output is a list, lacking detail on pagination or response structure.
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?
The description is a single sentence of about 25 words, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more structured.
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?
Given no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It covers only the 'section' parameter and fails to explain pagination (page, limit) or the format of the returned list.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists the six valid values for 'section', adding meaning beyond the enum. However, it provides no information about 'page' or 'limit' parameters, which remain unexplained.
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 clearly states the tool returns one editorial guidance section as a list, listing the six specific section values. It uses a specific verb ('get' implied) and resource, and the mention of 'six lenses API Evangelist organizes guidance through' helps distinguish it from other get_* siblings.
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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_area or get_overview. The description does not indicate context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_overviewAInspectSTART HERE. What the API Evangelist network offers: sixteen years of API research as searchable stories, 77 topic areas, governance building blocks (guidance, rules, policies, standards, strategies), papers, conversations, and the consulting services Kin Lane offers teams. Returns counts, entry points, and how to engage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the tool's non-destructive nature (read-only overview) and concrete outputs (counts, entry points, engagement). It does not mention any side effects, which is appropriate.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with 'START HERE,' and every word provides value. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return type. It could be slightly more explicit about the structure of the returned data, but it sufficiently enables correct 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by detailing what the tool returns, compensating for the lack of parameters.
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 clearly states that the tool provides an overview of the API Evangelist network, listing specific offerings (research, topics, governance blocks, etc.) and what it returns, distinguishing it from sibling tools which target narrower resources.
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?
The description leads with 'START HERE,' explicitly guiding the agent to use this tool as an entry point. While it does not list exclusions or alternatives, the sibling context makes its role as a high-level starting point clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_paperBInspectOne paper with its full outline and purchase/landing URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially carries the burden. It indicates a read operation returning a single paper, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or what 'full outline' entails. Adequate for a simple get.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded. However, it omits important parameter information that could be added without bloating. Otherwise efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is functional but incomplete. It fails to clarify the slug parameter and the scope of 'full outline'. Sibling tools are numerous, but this description does not ensure correct selection.
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?
The only parameter 'slug' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain what a slug is, its format, or how to obtain it. This is a significant gap.
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 clearly states the tool returns one paper with its full outline and URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_papers which likely return multiple results. However, the meaning of 'full outline' is vague.
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?
Implied usage: retrieve a specific paper by slug. No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like find_papers or get_post. The context is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_postBInspectOne story by slug (YYYY-MM-DD-slug); include=["content"] returns the full markdown body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| include | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, handles errors, or has side effects. The description focuses on input/output but omits safety and operational context.
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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, key parameters, and output format. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Given no annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions in the schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the return structure beyond 'full markdown body', nor does it cover error conditions, pagination, or related behavior.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning: the slug format and the effect of include. However, it does not specify the default behavior when include is omitted or provide full detail on what the response contains beyond the markdown body.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves one story by slug with a specified format (YYYY-MM-DD-slug), and it explains the effect of the include parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_paper or get_video, each targeting different resources.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_posts for searching. The description only explains what the tool does, not the context in which it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_serviceAInspectFull detail for one service offering by slug; include=["content"] inlines the full pitch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| include | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that include=['content'] inlines the full pitch, but does not mention any other behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, side effects, or what constitutes 'full detail' beyond the include parameter.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and efficiently adds the key parameter behavior. No unnecessary words.
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 getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality. However, it could be improved by hinting at the response structure or confirming what 'full detail' includes.
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%, but the description adds meaning to both parameters: slug is the identifier ('by slug'), and include=['content'] is explained as inlining the full pitch. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves full detail for one service offering by slug, and includes a specific usage note for the include parameter to inline content. This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_area or get_building_block.
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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives; the purpose is implied by the name 'get_service' and the description, but the description does not mention scenarios where other getter tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_solutionAInspectOne solution from the vendor registry by slug, with its website and adoption count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, or error handling for missing slugs. It only states what is returned but not any side effects or constraints.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence of 11 words that communicates the essential information without redundancy.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output fields. However, it could be more complete by specifying the response format or adding error behavior, but it is 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the slug parameter identifies the solution and that the response includes website and adoption count. This gives meaning beyond the bare parameter name.
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 clearly states the tool returns a single solution from the vendor registry identified by slug, and specifies the included fields (website, adoption count). This distinguishes it from the sibling find_solutions which likely returns multiple solutions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like find_solutions. It does not mention prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_statsBInspectPRO — catalog intelligence: per-type counts, stories-per-year, and the top tags by reach across the network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only describes output content and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The 'PRO' label indirectly suggests authentication but is insufficient.
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, well-structured sentence (15 words) with a clear label 'PRO — catalog intelligence' and a colon-separated list of outputs. No wasted words; every part contributes meaning.
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?
Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on output format, pagination, or examples. The terms 'per-type counts' and 'top tags by reach' are vague. For a tool with many siblings, more context would help an agent decide when to use it.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level semantics. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does add value by explaining what the tool returns, which helps the agent understand the output without needing to infer from an empty schema.
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 clearly states the tool provides catalog intelligence with specific outputs (per-type counts, stories-per-year, top tags by reach). It distinguishes from siblings like get_area or get_tag by focusing on aggregate stats rather than individual entities. However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', which slightly reduces clarity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like api_coverage or company_gaps. The 'PRO' label hints at premium access but is not explicit. There is no mention of prerequisites, restrictions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_tagAInspectOne tag with its per-type counts and everything it labels across the whole network (stories, areas, guidance, papers, …). Filter with types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| types | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns counts and labeled items across the network, and supports filtering. It does not mention pagination or authentication, but the core read behavior is clear.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with key info and no waste. Every word earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It mentions counts and labeled items but omits structure, pagination details, and parameter default behavior. Adequate but incomplete given 4 parameters and no output schema.
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 coverage is 0% and there are 4 parameters. The description adds context for the 'types' parameter ('Filter with types') but does not explain 'slug', 'page', or 'limit'. Some value is added, but not comprehensive.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves one tag with per-type counts and all labeled items (stories, areas, guidance, papers, etc.), and allows filtering by types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_tags.
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?
The description implies usage for getting details of a single tag with optional type filters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like find_tags, and no when-not-to-use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_timelineCInspectOne of the four research timelines in chronological order: api (the moments that shaped web APIs), resources (which digital resources became APIs and when), industries (the industrial history framing API infrastructure), people (the people who made compute and APIs possible).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| timeline | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'chronological order' but does not specify that the tool is read-only, how results are paginated, or any other side effects.
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?
The description is a single sentence that packs the enum options in a list, which is somewhat structured but could be more concise by splitting into separate points.
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?
No output schema, no mention of return format (e.g., list of events), and missing pagination details. Given the number of sibling tools, more context is needed to guide agent selection.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain all parameters. It only describes the 'timeline' enum values, leaving 'page' and 'limit' unexplained despite their defaults and constraints suggesting pagination.
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 clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'timeline', and enumerates the four specific timelines (api, resources, industries, people), distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch individual entities.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it only lists the timeline options without explaining contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_toolBInspectOne tool from the tooling registry by slug, with its website, adoption count, and radar ring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists returned fields but omits behavioral traits such as auth requirements, side effects, or read-only nature. Only discloses output shape minimally.
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?
Single sentence of 14 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded. No waste.
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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers basic purpose and return fields. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter details, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand 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?
The sole parameter 'slug' is not explained beyond 'by slug'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to define what a slug is or provide format/examples.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves a tool from the tooling registry by slug, specifying the returned fields (website, adoption count, radar ring). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_area or get_post by targeting the tooling registry.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_tools or other get_* tools. Does not mention prerequisites or contextual usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_videoBInspectOne video by slug with its YouTube id; include=["content"] returns the full transcript.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| include | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the optional include parameter and its effect, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any other side effects. The name implies read-only, but it's not explicit.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 12 words with no filler. Every part serves a purpose, stating the core functionality and the optional behavior.
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 get-by-id tool, the description covers the main action and the optional transcript retrieval. However, it lacks definition of the slug parameter and does not describe what the tool returns (beyond the transcript aspect). With no output schema, more detail would be helpful.
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 compensate. It explains the include parameter (enum 'content' returns transcript), but does not describe the slug parameter (what kind of slug, format?). The explanation adds some value but is incomplete.
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?
Clearly states that the tool retrieves a single video by slug and can optionally return the full transcript via the include parameter. The verb 'get' and resource 'video' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_videos' which likely handles listing.
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?
The description implies usage when you have a video slug and need details or transcript, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., find_videos for searching). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
governance_reportAInspectTurn Spectral findings into a self-contained HTML governance report — severity summary, grouped by rule, framed toward progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description states output format and content but does not disclose side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. Adequate but leaves some behavioral traits unspecified.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys core functionality.
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?
No output schema, but description adequately explains output (self-contained HTML report with severity summary, grouped by rule). Lacks details on handling large inputs or error conditions, but sufficient for typical use.
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?
Input schema has one required parameter 'results' with no type or description. Schema description coverage is 100% vacuously (no properties defined). Description does not explain the format or structure of 'results', relying on inference from 'Spectral findings'.
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?
Description clearly specifies the action (turn into), resource (Spectral findings), and output (self-contained HTML governance report with severity summary, grouped by rule). Distinguishes from sibling tools like api_coverage or api_scorecard which are analysis tools, not report generators.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with siblings. Usage is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
govern_estateAInspectPRO — Run the core governance checks across a WHOLE SET of internal APIs and roll them up: per-API score/grade/errors/PII, plus estate aggregates (avg score, grade distribution, APIs with PII/secrets) and a worst-first punch-list of what to fix. Pass apis ([{id, document}]) and your own ruleset. detail:true adds per-API dimensions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses outputs (per-API score/grade/errors/PII, estate aggregates, worst-first punch-list) and the effect of 'detail:true'. It does not mention destructive actions, mutation, or side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only analysis tool.
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?
The description is three sentences and starts with the main purpose. It is concise but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters). Still, every sentence adds value.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (score, grade, errors, PII, aggregates, punch-list). Parameters are partially described. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description covers the essential aspects.
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?
The input schema is empty (properties: {}) with additionalProperties: true, so schema coverage is effectively 0%. The description compensates by naming 'apis' (with structure {id, document}) and mentioning 'ruleset' and 'detail'. However, it does not fully define all possible parameters or their constraints.
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 clearly states it runs core governance checks across a whole set of internal APIs, rolling up per-API and estate-level results. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'api_scorecard' (likely single API) by specifying 'WHOLE SET'.
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?
The description implies this tool is for multi-API governance checks via 'WHOLE SET', but does not explicitly state when to or not to use it over alternatives like 'api_scorecard' or 'audit_pipeline'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
guide_topicAInspectPRO — Curated guide to one API topic (e.g. "gateways", "api governance", "discovery", "agents"). Bundles the matching topic area (with related areas), top guidance, rules, policies, and standards, relevant papers and recent stories, plus the API Evangelist services that can help a team with this topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | The topic to build a guide for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or the cost/complexity of generation.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the key purpose and includes a bullet-style list of bundled items, making it informative without being overly verbose.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the guide contains (topics, rules, papers, services). For a single-parameter tool, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the return value.
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?
The single parameter 'topic' has a schema description, but the tool description enriches it by listing example topics and explaining that the guide bundles related areas, rules, papers, etc.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'PRO — Curated guide to one API topic', with specific examples like 'gateways', 'api governance'. It differentiates from siblings by specifying it bundles multiple related resources into a guide.
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?
The description implies the tool should be used to obtain a curated guide for a specific topic, but it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
insights_adoptionCInspectServices, tools, or standards ranked by how many companies adopt them. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| type | No | service | |
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only mentions 'Free' but does not disclose pagination behavior, data freshness, or any side effects. The description lacks necessary behavioral context beyond the input 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?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of missing critical information. It is appropriately short for a simple tool but lacks structure and completeness.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain return format, sorting order, filtering options, or any other contextual details needed for effective use.
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%, and the description does not add any meaning to the three parameters (page, type, limit). The type parameter's enum values are implied in the description ('services, tools, or standards') but not explicitly mapped, and no other parameter behavior is explained.
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 clearly states that the tool returns services, tools, or standards ranked by adoption, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_services' or 'find_tools' by emphasizing ranking by adoption, but not explicitly compared with 'insights_dimensions'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Free' but that is about cost, not usage context. No when-not or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
insights_dimensionsCInspectCross-section ranking of the 40 tracked investment dimensions (AI, cloud, governance, …) by company signal. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Free', which is ambiguous regarding read-only, auth needs, or side effects. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond being possibly cost-free.
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?
The description is very short (one sentence plus 'Free'), which is concise but too brief to be fully informative. It front-loads the core purpose but omits necessary details.
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?
Given the simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values or how the ranking is presented. The tool's function is hinted but not fully fleshed out.
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%, and the description does not mention the parameters (page, limit) at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema's structural definition.
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 clearly states the tool ranks 40 investment dimensions by company signal. It uses a specific verb ('ranking') and resource ('dimensions'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, though the focus on dimensions is unique among the listed tools.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'Free' is a status note, not usage context. No prerequisites or situational advice is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
map_api_experienceAInspectMap each REST operation to its MCP tool and Agent Skill — the API -> MCP -> Agent-Skill chain — from an APIs.json, with a free/paid coverage scorecard and a flow map.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It mentions outputs (scorecard and flow map) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and outputs. Every word adds value; no redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema and no parameters, the description provides a high-level view but lacks details on the output format, coverage scorecard specifics, and how the flow map is delivered. More context on expected results would improve completeness.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Map' and the resource 'REST operation to its MCP tool and Agent Skill', specifying the chain from APIs.json and outputs a scorecard and flow map. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like api_coverage and api_scorecard by focusing on the mapping process.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its purpose but does not explicitly state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mock_payloadsCInspectGenerate an example request and success-response payload for every operation from its schema.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose if the tool is read-only, modifies data, requires permissions, or has any limitations (e.g., size constraints). The phrase 'generate' implies a safe operation but is not explicit.
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?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it front-loads the purpose adequately. It could be more structured, but it's not overly verbose. Loses points for missing essential details.
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, no annotations, and a vague input schema, the description fails to provide necessary context. It does not explain the output format, the schema for operations, or how to interpret results. Incomplete for practical use.
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?
The input schema has an empty properties object with a required 'document' field, but the description adds no meaning. It does not explain what 'document' is, what format it expects, or how it relates to 'every operation'. Despite 100% schema coverage, the schema itself is insufficient.
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 clearly states the tool generates example request and success-response payloads, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'code_snippets' or 'diff_api_versions' by focusing on payload generation from a schema.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., for creating test data or documentation. No prerequisites or context provided. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reconcile_waiversAInspectReconcile a waivers file against lint output: suppress sanctioned violations and surface the expired, stale, and expiring ones. Returns the effective failing set a build should gate on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral info. It mentions suppressing violations and surfacing specific types, implying a read-and-filter operation. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies the waivers file or has side effects. The behavioral description is partial.
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?
The description is two well-structured sentences. The first sentence delivers the core function, and the second clarifies the output. Every word is meaningful and contributes to understanding.
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?
The description covers the main intent and output but lacks details on input formats, output structure, and error handling. Given no output schema and complex input (waivers file, lint output), more completeness would help. Still adequate for a mid-complexity tool.
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?
The input schema has two required parameters (waivers, violations) but no property definitions. Schema coverage is 100% because the schema lacks descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific details, relying on context from the tool name. Baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reconcile waivers against lint output, suppress sanctioned violations, and surface expired/stale/expiring ones, returning the effective failing set. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on waivers and lint.
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
score_reusabilityBInspectScore how reusable a set of APIs is and detect duplication across them — the anti-sprawl view of an estate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the tool's primary function but provides no details about side effects, data requirements, limitations, or what the scoring entails. Since no annotations are present, the description carries full responsibility, and it is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to the core purpose.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more detail about what the analysis includes, how scores are produced, and what form the output takes. Current description is too vague.
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?
There are 0 parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 clearly states the action (score reusability and detect duplication) and the context (anti-sprawl view of an estate). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like api_coverage, leaving some ambiguity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as api_coverage or governance_report. The description implies it's for analyzing sprawl but provides no explicit context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_api_evangelistAInspectUnified search across the whole network: 5k+ stories, 77 topic areas, 2.5k governance building blocks, papers, conversations, videos, tools, timelines, services, and vocabulary. Filter with types (posts, areas, guidance, rules, policies, standards, strategies, schema, properties, experiences, lifecycle, conversations, videos, papers, services, solutions, tools, timelines, vocabulary).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free text over title, summary, tags, and body. | |
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | Tag slugs; match any by default. | |
| limit | No | ||
| match | No | any | |
| types | No | ||
| fields | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It describes the scope and types filter, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication, or result format. Basic search behavior is implied but not fully transparent.
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?
The description is a single sentence that packs in scope and filters, no wasted words. Could be structured with bullet points for readability, but remains efficient.
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?
Given 8 parameters and many sibling tools, the description covers scope and types but lacks details on output, pagination, and other filter usage. No output schema, so more context on return values would help.
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 only 25% (q and tags have descriptions). The description adds meaning for the types parameter but does not explain other parameters (page, sort, limit, match, fields). With low coverage, description should compensate more.
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 clearly states this is a unified search tool across the whole network, listing specific content types (stories, topics, building blocks, etc.). It differentiates from siblings like find_posts, find_tools, etc. by being the comprehensive search across all these categories.
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?
The description implies usage for searching across multiple content types and provides filter options via types. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to specific sibling tools, but the unified scope is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_apiAInspectLint an OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, Arazzo, or JSON Schema document against the curated best-of-breed ruleset (Spectral) and return the findings. Pass your own ruleset to run rules you own instead of the catalog — which is what you should do before gating on anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It specifies that the tool performs linting and returns findings, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state any constraints like authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The lack of output schema further limits transparency.
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?
The description is concise, with two sentences that efficiently communicate the core functionality and usage hint. Every phrase adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple document types, custom rulesets) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the format of findings, error handling, or any limits. The missing details could hinder an agent's correct use.
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?
The input schema has no defined properties despite listing 'document' as required, but the description adds meaning by mentioning the 'document' and 'ruleset' parameters. This compensates for the sparse schema, providing essential context for an agent.
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 clearly states it lints OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, Arazzo, or JSON Schema documents using Spectral and returns findings, with the option to pass custom rulesets. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'api_coverage' or 'api_scorecard' which serve different purposes.
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 explains when to use it (linting documents before gating) and mentions passing own ruleset as recommended. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_onboardingAInspectValidate an API Onboarding Descriptor (AID) against the api-commons schema and report which optional sections it fills in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the validation and reporting behavior, but without annotations it does not mention if the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It adds some value beyond an empty annotation set.
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?
Single sentence with no filler. Efficiently conveys core purpose and output.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could elaborate on the report format or any side effects. It covers the essentials.
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 effectively 0% (schema has empty properties), so the description must compensate. It identifies 'descriptor' as the AID and states what it is validated against, but does not specify format, structure, or constraints.
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 clearly states the tool validates an API Onboarding Descriptor (AID) against the api-commons schema and reports which optional sections are filled. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like validate_api.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as validate_api or api_scorecard. It does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_certificateAInspectRe-verify a governance certificate against the API it attests to. If the API drifted or the certificate was forged, verification fails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions two failure scenarios (API drift, forged certificate) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns on success, or any side effects. With no annotations, more detail would help.
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 concise sentences effectively convey purpose, scope, and failure conditions. No redundant information.
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?
The description covers the tool's core function and failure modes. However, it lacks details about the return format or examples, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.
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?
The input schema lacks property descriptions, but the description explains that 'certificate' is a governance certificate and 'api' is the API it attests to. This adds meaningful context beyond the field names.
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 clearly states the tool re-verifies a governance certificate against its API, with specific failure conditions (drift or forgery). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'certify_api' or 'validate_api'.
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?
The description implies the tool is used to re-verify certificates, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives like 'certify_api' or 'validate_api'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
