Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

api-evangelist

by com.apievangelist
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

govern_estate

Read-only

PRO — Run the core governance checks across a WHOLE SET of internal APIs and roll them up: per-API score/grade/errors/PII, plus estate aggregates (avg score, grade distribution, APIs with PII/secrets) and a worst-first punch-list of what to fix. Pass apis ([{id, document}]) and your own ruleset. detail:true adds per-API dimensions.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apisYesThe estate: one entry per API, [{ id, document }]. `document` alone is accepted for a single API.
contextNoOptional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / apis
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The estate: one entry per API, [{ id, document }]. `document` alone is accepted for a single API.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the computation's output profile (roll-up aggregates, worst-first punch-list, PII/secrets flags) and that detail:true expands per-API dimensions. However it references a `ruleset` parameter and `detail` flag that do not appear in the schema, muddying the behavioral picture.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the output summary, then the invocation hint; each clause carries weight. Slightly dense with ALL-CAPS emphasis and the ungrounded `ruleset`/`detail` mention, but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining the return structure (per-API grades/errors/PII, estate aggregates, punch-list), which is what an agent needs. The only gap is the dangling reference to `ruleset`/`detail` params absent from the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the `apis` shape ([{id, document}]) and the `context` param are already fully documented; the description largely repeats that. It does name `ruleset` and `detail:true`, but since neither is in the schema, the agent gets no usable semantics for them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Run the core governance checks across a WHOLE SET of internal APIs and roll them up.' The 'WHOLE SET' / 'estate aggregates' framing distinguishes it from single-API siblings like validate_api, api_scorecard, and governance_report. It even enumerates the output shape (per-API score/grade/errors/PII, aggregates, punch-list).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'WHOLE SET' phrasing implies batch/estate-level use versus single-API tools, which is useful context, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over governance_report, validate_api, or api_scorecard, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All api-evangelist toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources