Search 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.
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.
