APIs similar to a given one ("more like this") by shared tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aid | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| context | No | 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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, covering safety. The description adds that results are based on shared tags, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not disclose output format, pagination, or ordering, but given the read-only nature and simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
One crisp sentence that fully captures the tool's essence with zero filler. The key information (verb, resource, method) 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 simple read-only tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand its purpose and mechanism. It lacks explicit return format, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity and the readOnlyHint.
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 33% (context has a description). The description does not compensate for the undocumented aid and limit parameters; it mentions tags but not how parameters map. aid and limit are somewhat self-explanatory, but with low coverage the description should provide more guidance.
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 states a specific verb ('find') and resource ('similar APIs'), and specifies the mechanism ('by shared tags'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like find_apis (general search) and find_similar_providers (different entity type).
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 phrase 'more like this' implies the use case of starting from a known API and wanting similar ones, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give exclusions, so an agent might not know when to choose this over find_apis. It's clear enough for the intended purpose.
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.