Exact reference for one REST endpoint: every query parameter (name, type, description, required, default), a real sample request, and a truncated real sample response. Use the path as shown by list_endpoints, e.g. '/v2/search/car/active'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Endpoint path, e.g. /v2/search/car/active. Full api.marketcheck.com URLs accepted. | |
| method | No | Optional; defaults to the single documented method. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns real samples and explicitly notes the sample response is truncated, which is transparent about what the caller should expect.
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 tightly worded sentences carry all the essential information. The purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed directly by a concrete usage example; there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the returned reference contains and noting that the response is truncated. Remaining gaps such as exact formatting or auth requirements are minor for a read-only look-up tool already covered by annotations and schema.
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 both path and method are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds the practical note to use the path as shown by list_endpoints, but it doesn't need to add further parameter meaning given the schema's completeness.
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 immediately identifies the tool as an 'exact reference for one REST endpoint' and lists its concrete contents: every query parameter, a sample request, and a truncated sample response. It distinguishes itself from list_endpoints by instructing use of paths as shown by that sibling 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?
It gives clear usage context: use the path returned by list_endpoints, and it provides a concrete example. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus search_docs or get_doc_page, but the reference-vs-docs distinction is reasonably implied.
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 distinct role: semantic search, listing endpoints, fetching endpoint reference, fetching doc pages, and retrieving plan/limit info. get_doc_page and get_endpoint could seem close, but the descriptions clearly separate full pages from exact endpoint references.
All tool names follow a predictable verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_doc_page, get_endpoint, get_plans_and_limits, list_endpoints, search_docs. The verbs vary by action but are semantically appropriate and consistent in style.
Five tools is well-scoped for a documentation server. Each tool covers a necessary access pattern without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers the full documentation workflow: semantic search over all docs, enumeration of endpoints, exact endpoint details, full page retrieval, and current plan/limit data. There are no obvious dead ends for common documentation queries.