Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

api-evangelist

by com.apievangelist
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

classify_api_fields

Read-only

Inventory the PII, secret, and sensitive fields an OpenAPI exposes, across parameters and request/response schemas. Run this before exposing an API to agents.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoOptional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.
documentYesThe API description to operate on — OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, Arazzo or JSON Schema. A YAML/JSON string or an already-parsed object; both are accepted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / document
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The API description to operate on — OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, Arazzo or JSON Schema. A YAML/JSON string or an already-parsed object; both are accepted.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "object"
+  ]
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description confirms the inspection spans both parameters and request/response schemas, but adds nothing on permissions, rate limits, or what perspective (static scan vs runtime) is used.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the resource/scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the usage cue. Nothing is redundant with the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only classification tool with full annotation coverage and rich parameter docs, the description is nearly sufficient. With no output schema, it only lightly implies the shape of the result (an inventory of labeled fields) rather than describing it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself explains both the document formats accepted and the optional context field in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Inventory") and a precise resource (PII, secret, and sensitive fields), with the scope narrowed to parameters and request/response schemas. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like validate_api or api_scorecard, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Run this before exposing an API to agents" gives a concrete triggering condition and timing, so an agent knows this is a pre-exposure gating step. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to run it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All api-evangelist toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources