The 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.
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.
