List Socify platforms and resources with required parameters and request costs. Call this before lookup if you are unsure which endpoint to use.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_endpoints"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload's content (platforms, resources, required parameters, request costs), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the catalog is static or account-dependent.
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 short sentences, no filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the usage instruction second. Every clause carries information.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it says what is listed and what the result contains. It could add the return shape (e.g., a list of endpoint identifiers) to fully close the gap left by the missing output 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The mention of "required parameters and request costs" describes the returned data rather than inputs, which is appropriate here.
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 ("List") and resource ("Socify platforms and resources with required parameters and request costs"), which clearly frames it as a catalog/discovery tool. This distinguishes it from the endpoint-specific siblings such as instagram_profile/info or youtube_channel/videos, though it never explicitly says it is a meta-listing tool rather than an API call.
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 gives the trigger condition: "Call this before lookup if you are unsure which endpoint to use," naming the alternative sibling (lookup) and the uncertainty condition that selects this tool. It stops short of stating the inverse (skip this when you already know the endpoint) or mentioning other discovery paths, so it is clear but not exhaustive.
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.