Create, update, or delete records in a mock resource. Writes persist (unlike JSONPlaceholder/FakeStoreAPI). POST creates (auto-id), PUT replaces, PATCH merges, DELETE removes. id required for PUT/PATCH/DELETE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Record id (PUT/PATCH/DELETE). | |
| body | No | Record fields (POST/PUT/PATCH). | |
| method | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| resource | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses persistence behavior (writes persist) and explains the id requirement for PUT/PATCH/DELETE, which is not enforced in the schema (id is optional). This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover core functionality, persistence characteristics, and parameter requirements. Every sentence is necessary and informative with no 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?
The description covers operations and persistence but omits details like return behavior (does it return the created/updated record?), error scenarios, or response format. Given the tool has no output schema and 5 parameters, a bit more completeness (e.g., 'returns the record' or 'empty body on success') would be helpful.
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 only 40% (id and body have descriptions). The description adds meaning by explaining which methods require which parameters (e.g., id for PUT/PATCH/DELETE, body for POST/PUT/PATCH). However, it does not clarify the purpose of the required 'project' and 'resource' parameters, leaving a gap.
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 explicitly states the tool creates, updates, or deletes records, with clear mapping of HTTP verbs to operations (POST creates, PUT replaces, PATCH merges, DELETE removes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_records, which are read-only, and other resource-management tools.
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 specifies when to use each method (e.g., POST for create, id required for PUT/PATCH/DELETE) and notes that writes persist unlike JSONPlaceholder/FakeStoreAPI. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or advise when not to use this tool (e.g., for reading).
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 maps to a distinct resource/operation: project lifecycle, resource seeding, artifact import, record CRUD, custom routes, snapshots, request inspection, and external API status. Even the data-population tools are clearly separated by existing project (add_resource) versus new project (import_data/create_project).
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (add_resource, create_project, query_records, write_record, delete_project, etc.). A few noun-style names (custom_route, project_info, snapshots) break the pattern, but all names are snake_case and readable.
Eleven tools is a well-scoped set for a mock API server: project creation/deletion, data population/import, record operations, snapshots, custom routes, inspection, and API status all have dedicated tools without redundancy.
The core workflow is well covered: create/delete projects, add/import resources, CRUD records, snapshot state, define routes, and inspect requests. The main gaps are the lack of explicit resource deletion and custom-route update/delete, but these are workaroundable rather than blocking.