Redirects API JSON lookup for live and historical redirects by domain.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"lookup": "<lookup>"
},
"name": "redirects-api"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookup | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the provided annotations, the description adds functional behavioral traits by stating the scope of the lookups ('live and historical'). This context is valuable for the agent but does not cover technical behaviors like rate limits or specific error handling.
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 highly efficient, using only one sentence to define the tool's purpose, resource, and input constraint. Every word contributes meaningfully to the definition without unnecessary filler.
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 lookup tool with a single parameter, the definition is very complete. It accurately sets the boundaries of the API by specifying 'live' versus 'historical' data, ensuring the agent knows what the endpoint handles.
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?
Although schema coverage is reported as 0%, the description specifies that the lookup is performed 'by domain.' This explicitly defines the semantic meaning of the 'lookup' parameter, which is crucial for correct tool invocation.
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 defines the tool's function using the verb 'lookup' on the resource 'redirect' data. It specifies the scope of the data handled as both 'live and historical redirects,' making the purpose exceptionally clear.
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 provides clear functional context by mentioning 'live and historical' data types. However, it offers no prescriptive guidance on when to use this tool versus other domain-related APIs, leaving the agent to rely solely on its internal reasoning.
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.