get-endpointGets detailed information about a specific API endpoint, including security schemes and servers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The API endpoint path (e.g. /api/v1/users). | |
| title | Yes | Title of the OpenAPI spec. Use tool 'list-specs' or 'search-endpoints' to see available specs. | |
| method | Yes | The HTTP method (e.g. GET, POST, PUT, DELETE). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the details include 'security schemes and servers', providing useful context about the return content without contradicting the annotations.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key details without any redundant or filler text.
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 simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description is adequate. It states what the tool does and what information is included, though it does not describe the return format or potential errors, which is acceptable given the schema and annotations.
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 provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters (path, method, title), including examples and a pointer to list-specs/search-endpoints. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no further parameter meaning, 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and the resource ('detailed information about a specific API endpoint'), explicitly mentioning the inclusion of security schemes and servers. This distinguishes it from siblings like list-endpoints (which lists endpoints) and search-endpoints (which searches).
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 implies usage when detailed information about a single, known endpoint is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list-endpoints or search-endpoints. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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 has a clear, distinct purpose: listing specs, listing endpoints, searching endpoints, getting endpoint details, executing requests, and routing operations. Even list-endpoints and search-endpoints are differentiated by organization vs. keyword search, so agents can pick correctly.
All tool names follow a consistent verb-noun pattern in snake_case (execute-request, get-endpoint, list-endpoints, list-specs, route-kudosity-operations, search-endpoints). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Six tools is well within the ideal range for an API-focused server. Each tool contributes to a clear workflow: discover specs, find endpoints, get details, execute, and plan routing. No redundant or excessive tools.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of API interaction: discovering available specs, locating endpoints, retrieving detailed endpoint info, executing requests, and providing version routing guidance. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.