describe_apiReturn method, executable URL, schemas, price, coverage and documentation for one HelpMyAgent endpoint. This tool does not execute the endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | Canonical endpoint without version, exactly as published in the HelpMyAgent API catalogue. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
There are no annotations, so the description itself must indicate side effects. It does so with 'This tool does not execute the endpoint,' which tells the agent this is a metadata lookup rather than a live API call. It does not discuss authorization or rate limits, but for a read-only describe operation the non-execution statement addresses the main behavioral risk.
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 short sentences, with the return-value list front-loaded and the non-execution caveat placed immediately after. No filler or repetition of schema content.
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?
With a single well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool returns and the critical non-execution caveat. It stops short of referring the agent to search_apis for discovery or listing error behavior, but these are minor for this simple metadata 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?
The input schema already documents the endpoint parameter with 100% coverage, including the need for a canonical name exactly as published. The description only reinforces 'one ... endpoint' and adds no new parameter-level semantics. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.
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 opens with 'Return method, executable URL, schemas, price, coverage and documentation for one HelpMyAgent endpoint,' which names a specific verb, resource and output contents. The final sentence, 'This tool does not execute the endpoint,' separates it from data-returning siblings. This is precise and not 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?
The phrase 'for one HelpMyAgent endpoint' gives clear context: this is for a single canonical endpoint, not for discovery or bulk operations. 'This tool does not execute the endpoint' is an explicit when-not, though the description does not name alternatives like search_apis for endpoint discovery. Usage context is clear but sibling routing is left implicit.
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 endpoints target distinct resources, but several clusters are easy to confuse: company_fr_intelligence vs company_fr_kyb, company_fr_peers vs company_fr_competitors vs company_fr_public_contract_competitors, and company_fr_risk vs company_fr_default_score vs company_fr_payment_context. The descriptive names help, but the repetitive 'Use when' sections often restate the description rather than contrasting with nearby tools.
The dominant convention is domain_fr_feature with consistent snake_case, e.g., company_fr_profile, company_fr_financials, company_fr_public_contracts, procurement_fr_search, which makes the family predictable. The three meta tools (describe_api, list_categories, search_apis) switch to a bare verb_noun style, and a few company_fr names use verbs while most use nouns, creating a minor inconsistency.
With 30 tools, the surface exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for an agent to navigate, especially because aggregators like company_fr_intelligence and company_fr_kyb overlap with many single-purpose endpoints. The broad French-company data domain justifies a large number of endpoints, but several could be consolidated or split out to make the server more focused.
The set covers discovery, verification, profile, directors, financials, legal risk, compliance, public contracts, procurement, funding, benchmarking, signals, and aggregation, so core French-company workflows have no major dead ends. Minor gaps remain around beneficial-ownership/shareholder data and subscription-style monitoring, but those are explicitly outside the stated scope of most endpoints.