The 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.
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.
