APIs similar to a given one ("more like this") by shared tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aid | Yes | API id in the form provider:api-slug, as find_apis returns it, e.g. "stripe:stripe-api". | |
| limit | No | Results per page, 1-100 (default 25). | |
| context | No | Optional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / context / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable."New value: +"Optional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong."Input schema / properties / aid / descriptionAdded value: +"API id in the form provider:api-slug, as find_apis returns it, e.g. \"stripe:stripe-api\"."Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Results per page, 1-100 (default 25)."Input schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the mechanism (similarity derived from shared tags), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when no similar APIs exist.
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?
A single compact sentence with the key mechanism front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough to omit routing and pagination cues that would earn a 5.
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 simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present. It stops short of mentioning the provider-level counterpart or result volume/ordering, leaving small gaps that an agent might need.
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%, so the schema fully documents aid, limit, and context (including the aid format and the context non-ranking note). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when structured fields do the work.
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 (find APIs similar to a given one) and the similarity mechanism (shared tags), which is more than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the obvious sibling find_similar_providers or clarify why tags-based similarity was chosen.
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 gloss "more like this" implies a usage context of discovering related APIs, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g. find_similar_providers for provider-level similarity, find_apis for getting the aid). Usage is only 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.