List every provider with an ingested API spec in Alter's provider-spec catalog, with each spec's source and freshness. Optionally filter by kind. Start here, then call list_operations for a provider's operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Provider family: oauth (user-authorized) or managed (API-key). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists all matching providers and indicates result fields (source and freshness), which is solid behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, pagination, or need for authentication, leaving minor gaps for a list operation.
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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then states the optional filter, then provides a routing instruction, each sentence earning its place.
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 one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the result scope (all providers, with source and freshness), the filter, and the recommended next step. It doesn't detail the exact provider identifier format needed for the next call, but that is a minor omission given the simple domain.
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 coverage is 100%, with `kind` already documented as an enum with a definition in the schema. The description only adds 'Optionally filter by `kind`,' which reinforces the parameter's role but doesn't add substantive meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 every provider with an ingested API spec in Alter's provider-spec catalog,' which precisely states the tool's scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list_operations by explicitly naming it as the next step. This is far beyond a tautology.
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?
'Start here, then call list_operations for a provider's operations' gives an explicit sequence and names the correct sibling for the next task. It also notes the optional kind filter, clarifying the main decision point for narrowing the result. Clear when-to-use guidance.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct concerns: docs, provider operations, SDK wiring, policies, troubleshooting, and verification. However, get_started with no arguments overlaps with list_phases, and fetch_doc/list_skills both provide guidance content, creating minor ambiguity.
The set mostly follows a verb_noun pattern: fetch_doc, list_operations, list_providers, verify_integration, troubleshoot. A few names like policy_language, sdk_integration, and sdk_pattern are noun-led, which is a small consistency break but still predictable and readable.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal range for a focused onboarding server. Each tool contributes to a different part of the onboarding workflow, and none feel redundant or like filler.
The server covers the full onboarding journey: docs, lifecycle phases, step-by-step flows, provider API discovery, schema retrieval, SDK integration, SDK patterns, policy grammar, troubleshooting, and verification. There are no obvious dead ends or major missing operations for its stated purpose.
