Inventory 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | Yes | The API description to operate on — OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, Arazzo or JSON Schema. A YAML/JSON string or an already-parsed object; both are accepted. |
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 does not state whether the tool is read-only, modifies anything, or requires authentication. It implies an analysis operation ('Inventory') but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or describe any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 zero wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is a direct, actionable sentence. It is concise and well-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?
The description explains what the tool does and when to run it, but it does not describe the return value or output format. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the responsibility for explaining what the agent will receive. It lacks details about the inventory structure, classification categories, or any limitations. This is incomplete for a tool that produces a nuanced result.
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 already describes the 'document' parameter comprehensively (100% coverage), including accepted formats and types. The tool description adds little specific parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 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's function: inventorying PII, secret, and sensitive fields across parameters and request/response schemas. It uses a specific verb ('Inventory') and names the resource (OpenAPI) and scope. There are no sibling tools with similar purpose, so it is well-differentiated.
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 explicit usage guidance: 'Run this before exposing an API to agents.' This is a clear trigger and context for use. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the tool's uniqueness among siblings, this is sufficient. It could have explicitly stated when not to use it, but the guidance is useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
