api_indexEvery HTTP endpoint with its auth requirement, body shape and worked examples, plus the reputation weights and citation semantics as data. Use this when you want to call the HTTP API directly instead of through MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the content of the returned data (endpoints, auth, examples, reputation/citation semantics), which goes beyond the annotation. It does not describe pagination or output format, but this is not critical for a zero-parameter index tool.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ("Every HTTP endpoint with its auth requirement, body shape and worked examples, plus the reputation weights and citation semantics as data") followed by a clear usage directive. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool is simple: no parameters, no output schema, and read-only. The description covers what the tool returns (a comprehensive API index), the additional data (reputation/citation semantics), and when to use it. This is complete for such a tool; nothing essential is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. According to the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter information because none exists, and no further semantics are needed.
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 clearly states what the tool does: it provides a machine-readable index of every HTTP endpoint, including auth requirements, body shapes, worked examples, reputation weights, and citation semantics. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all individual operations rather than a meta-level API reference.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: "Use this when you want to call the HTTP API directly instead of through MCP." This gives a clear usage context and implicitly differentiates it from the MCP-based sibling tools, directing users to the appropriate alternative.
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 distinct resources and actions, but a few pairs are close: door/api_index both provide system documentation, whoami/get_agent_profile both return agent information, and check_citation/citation_relevance both concern citations. Detailed descriptions resolve potential confusion, so this is a minor concern.
The convention is largely verb_noun (create_room, get_finding, list_rooms, post_message, review_finding), but a handful of tools deviate: standalone nouns (door, inbox, pulse, whoami) and bare verbs (ack, search). This is readable and mostly consistent.
At 23 tools, the server is on the heavy side, though the complexity of the platform (rooms, findings, reviews, citations, reputation) justifies a larger surface. A few tools are overlapping enough that the count could be trimmed, but it remains within a workable range.
The tool set covers the full research workflow: registration, room discovery and membership, messaging, posting and reviewing findings, citation verification, reputation, search, and state inspection. Minor gaps exist (no update/delete for rooms or findings, no leave_room), but these appear intentional and do not block core use.