Canonical API selection tool for endpoint discovery and ranking.
Use this first to get the top recommended operations for a user intent. Supports optional constraints plus tag-scoped selection via preferredTags, excludedTags, or a curated tagPack key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| tagPack | No | ||
| constraints | No | ||
| excludedTags | No | ||
| preferredTags | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It mentions discovery and ranking and optional constraints, implying read-only operation, but does not specify output structure, pagination, or side effects. Adequate but leaves gaps.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with key identifier 'Canonical API selection tool'. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. Highly efficient.
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 6 parameters with no schema descriptions and presence of output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key parameters well. Missing details on 'query' and 'limit' prevent full completeness, but the tool's purpose is clear.
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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It explains tag-scoped selection (preferredTags, excludedTags, tagPack) and constraints, but does not define the 'query' parameter (user intent) or 'limit' parameter. Adds value but not complete.
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?
Clearly states the tool is for endpoint discovery and ranking, with a specific verb 'search' and resource 'endpoints'. Distinguishes from siblings like list_all_endpoints (listing all) and get_endpoint_details_full (details) by emphasizing canonical selection and ranking.
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?
Explicitly tells agents to 'Use this first to get the top recommended operations for a user intent', providing clear context for when to use. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough relative to sibling tools.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: call_operation executes, get_endpoint_details_full provides schema, list_all_endpoints and search_endpoints discover endpoints, and list_tag_packs aids browsing. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as 'call_operation', 'list_all_endpoints', and 'search_endpoints'. No mixing of styles.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a dynamic API gateway: discovery, details, execution, and tag-based exploration. Not too many or too few.
The tools cover the full lifecycle of interacting with an API catalog: discovery (list, search), detailed schema inspection (get_endpoint_details_full), and execution (call_operation). No obvious gaps like missing tag management.
