Search mock APIs across all of the authenticated user's projects by keyword, tags, or HTTP method. Use this BEFORE creating new mocks to avoid duplicates. Results are scoped to the token owner's projects only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Filter by tags (matches mock, project, or collection labels) | |
| query | No | Search keyword (matches mock name, path, description; also project/collection names) | |
| method | No | Filter by HTTP method (GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: it is a read/search operation and results are restricted to the token owner's projects (an auth-scoping constraint an agent must know to interpret empty results). It does not mention result limits, ordering, or pagination behavior.
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 short sentences: scope first, then the workflow guidance, then the authorization constraint. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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 three-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the primary workflow trigger. It could be stronger by noting that all parameters are optional / how filters combine, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.
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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter already documents its matching targets in detail. The description's phrase 'by keyword, tags, or HTTP method' merely restates the parameter set without adding syntax, combination, or precedence rules. Baseline 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 ('Search mock APIs') plus both scope ('across all of the authenticated user's projects') and the three matching axes (keyword, tags, HTTP method). This implicitly separates it from list_mocks, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Gives a genuine usage rule: 'Use this BEFORE creating new mocks to avoid duplicates,' which orients the agent in a create workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. list_mocks for unfiltered enumeration, get_mock_by_slug for exact lookup) or stating when not to use it.
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.
