Get comprehensive information about specific endpoint including parameters, security, and examples
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | API name | |
| path | Yes | Endpoint path (e.g. /api/v1/users) | |
| method | Yes | HTTP method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, etc.) | |
| version | No | API version (required when multiple APIs share the same name but differ by version) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the content of the response (parameters, security, examples). No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns. It is fairly complete for a simple info retrieval tool, though could mention that it is read-only or idempotent (already in annotations).
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%, so parameters are already well described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond 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?
Description clearly states it retrieves comprehensive information about a specific endpoint, including parameters, security, and examples. It distinguishes from siblings like get-endpoints (which likely lists multiple endpoints) and get-full-api-description.
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?
Implied usage for getting details on one specific endpoint, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get-endpoints or search. No when-not or exclusions provided.
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 targets a distinct aspect of API documentation: listing APIs, retrieving endpoints, endpoint details, full description, security schemes, and search. No functional overlap.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list-apis, get-endpoints, etc.), but 'search' is a single verb, slightly breaking the pattern. Overall naming is clear and predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—comprehensive enough without being overwhelming. The number is appropriate for a documentation explorer.
The set covers listing APIs, endpoint details, full spec, security, and search. Minor gaps like endpoint filtering or version comparison exist, but core workflows are well-covered.