Reconcile a waivers file against lint output: suppress sanctioned violations and surface the expired, stale, and expiring ones. Returns the effective failing set a build should gate on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| waivers | Yes | The waivers file to reconcile — sanctioned violations, with expiry. | |
| violations | Yes | Lint output to reconcile against the waivers. An array of findings, or the object a linter returned. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the core behavior (suppresses, surfaces, returns) and the return value's significance, but it does not state whether the tool mutates the waivers file, requires any permissions, or how the returned set is structured. These are meaningful gaps for a reconciliation tool.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the key return semantic. Every phrase earns its place—there is no filler, repetition of the tool name, or boilerplate.
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?
The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what inputs to provide and what outcome to expect. However, with no output schema, the exact shape of the 'effective failing set' is left unspecified, and the criteria for 'stale' and 'expiring' are not elaborated—minor gaps given the generally clear purpose.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight semantic color by calling waivers 'sanctioned violations, with expiry' and violations 'lint output', but it mostly restates what the schema already says. It does not meaningfully expand on accepted formats for the loosely typed union values.
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 states a specific verb ('reconcile') and resource ('a waivers file against lint output'), then defines the exact behavior: suppress sanctioned violations and surface expired, stale, and expiring ones. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many generic find/get siblings by naming its unique reconciliation concern.
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 gives clear usage context: use this when you have a waivers file and lint output and need the effective failing set a build should gate on. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no obviously competing sibling exists and the intended workflow is evident.
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.
