Searches official Apollo documentation for GraphQL, GraphOS, Apollo Router, Apollo Client, MCP Server, schema design, deployment, and Connectors. Returns URLs, slugs, and excerpts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Use terms that would lead to broad result with a maximum of 2 keywords. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| errors | No | ||
| extensions | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free search. The description adds that it returns URLs, slugs, and excerpts, which is useful, but does not disclose pagination, result limits, ordering, or whether results are ranked by relevance. With solid annotations, 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?
Two sentences, zero waste. States the subject (official Apollo docs), the scope (topic coverage), and the output (URLs, slugs, excerpts). Every clause earns 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?
A single-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, a clear output schema, and strong annotations. The description is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke it correctly. The main gap is not clarifying the handoff to ApolloDocsRead for reading full content, but overall this is well-covered for a search tool.
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 the single query parameter is already documented. The description adds the guidance to use 'broad terms with a maximum of 2 keywords' in the schema itself. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, baseline 3 applies; the description doesn't add extra 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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Searches official Apollo documentation' for named topics. Specifies return values (URLs, slugs, excerpts). Does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling ApolloDocsRead, but the search-vs-read distinction is implied by 'Searches' and returning URLs/slugs/excerpts rather than content.
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?
No guidance on when to use search vs the sibling ApolloDocsRead tool. The description implies search is a discovery step, but never states that after finding a URL you should use ApolloDocsRead to fetch the page content. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
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 clearly distinct resource and action: docs (search/read), launches (history/get/latest), metrics (operations/subgraphs/top ops), config checks (PQL/lint/variant), and identity resolution. There is no meaningful overlap — GetLaunchHistory, GetLaunch, and GetLatestLaunch are clearly differentiated by scope. The tool set is exceptionally well delineated.
The naming follows a mostly consistent pattern, but there is a notable inconsistency: seven tools use the Get* prefix (GetLaunch, GetVariantDetails, GetLintResults, etc.) while two use an inconsistent ApolloDocs* prefix (ApolloDocsSearch, ApolloDocsRead). The Get* tools are uniform, and the camelCase compound names (GetLatestLaunch, GetOperationMetrics) are readable, but the two ApolloDocs tools break the pattern.
13 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool maps to a distinct GraphOS capability: documentation access, identity resolution, launch/deployment inspection, health metrics, linting, PQL status, and variant details. No tool feels extraneous, and the count is appropriate for the broad but bounded domain of GraphOS observability and configuration.
The surface covers the core GraphOS operations well: deployments (launch tools), traffic health (metrics tools), configuration (variant/PQL/lint), documentation, and identity. A minor gap is the absence of write/management operations (e.g., no tool to trigger a launch, update PQL, or modify variant configuration), meaning the server is read-only in nature. For a read-only observability/health-check server this is acceptable, but an agent could not act on findings. Also no tool to list graphs/variants directly (only via GetMyIdentity).
