List the endpoints under one line, identified by lineKey; returns {lineKey, endpoints: []} with no paging. Each entry reports id, name, path, httpMethod, strict, mock, and targetCount — not the endpoint's full body, which get_endpoint returns. Errors when lineKey is missing or doesn't match a line in the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lineKey | Yes | The line key, e.g. "v1". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the exact return shape, the absence of paging, the specific fields returned, and the error cases. This provides rich behavioral context without repeating the annotation data.
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 three sentences with no filler: purpose and return shape in the first sentence, field detail and the get_endpoint contrast in the second, and error conditions in the third. Every sentence earns its place and the most important 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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the responsibility for explaining the result. It fully covers the return envelope, the endpoint entry fields, the lack of pagination, and error behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.
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 already fully describes lineKey with type and example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that lineKey identifies the line and by specifying error behavior for missing or unmatched lineKey values, going beyond just the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the endpoints under one line, identified by `lineKey`.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_endpoint by stating that it returns summary fields, not the full endpoint body, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 explicitly names get_endpoint as the alternative for full endpoint bodies, telling the agent when not to use this tool. It also provides concrete failure conditions ('Errors when lineKey is missing or doesn't match a line'), which gives practical guidance on prerequisites and expected usage.
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.
