Choose which operations and fields an API exposes to agents and emit a governed Tyk OpenAPI, an MCP tool manifest, and a Spectral ruleset with PII and secret checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'emit' outputs, implying a generation action, but does not indicate whether it is a read-only operation, requires authentication, or has side effects (e.g., creating files or altering state). The description does not cover safety or destructive potential.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's action and outputs. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. No unnecessary words are present.
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 absence of annotations, output schema, and a free-form input schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected input format, the behavior of the tool, or what the outputs contain. For a tool that generates multiple artifacts, more context is needed for correct invocation.
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 has no defined properties and allows additional properties, but the description adds no guidance on what the input object should contain. It mentions 'operations and fields' but does not specify format, structure, or examples. Since the schema coverage is effectively 100% (no defined params), the description fails to compensate for the open-ended schema.
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 purpose: 'Choose which operations and fields an API exposes to agents' and 'emit' specific outputs. The verb 'choose' and resource 'operations and fields' are specific, and the tool's function is distinct from siblings, many of which are retrieval or analysis tools. However, the description could be more precise about how the input specifies these choices.
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 alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not the appropriate usage scenario.
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.
