Score how reusable a set of APIs is and detect duplication across them — the anti-sprawl view of an estate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / contextAdded 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"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it also detects duplication, but says nothing about the scoring scale, the scope of the 'set of APIs' input, or the return format. Some added context, but not rich.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource leading; the em-dash clause adds scope rather than filler. Efficient, though slightly compressed.
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?
For a read-only tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits how the estate is selected and what a result looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent deciding whether to reach for it.
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?
There is one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'context' including its purpose and non-use in ranking. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('score how reusable a set of APIs is') plus a secondary function ('detect duplication across them'), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not name the sibling it competes with, notably api_scorecard, so the agent must guess how this differs from the scorecard tool.
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 phrase 'the anti-sprawl view of an estate' is framing rather than guidance. There is no statement of when to use this versus api_scorecard, api_coverage, or governance_report, and no exclusions or prerequisites are 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.