List the endpoints accessible to the dashboard owner behind your MCP access token or endpoint API key. PATs are preferred for owner-wide inventory and require mcp:read or mcp:*.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Legacy endpoint API key (x402_*) | |
| accessToken | No | Your dashboard MCP personal access token (sgl_pat_*) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / accessTokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your dashboard MCP personal access token (sgl_pat_*)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / apiKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your endpoint API key (x402_*)"New value: +"Legacy endpoint API key (x402_*)"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "apiKey"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that PATs require specific permissions (mcp:read or mcp:*), and clarifies 'accessible to the dashboard owner' to define scope. It does not mention return format or pagination, but the 'List' verb already implies a read-only operation.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise usage note on token preference. Every sentence provides valuable information without redundancy.
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 list tool with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description explains what is listed, auth alternatives, scope, and permission requirements. It lacks details on response format or pagination, but these are not critical for using the tool correctly, and the description is otherwise complete.
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 schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by differentiating the two auth methods and stating a preference for PATs over the legacy API key, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 the tool lists endpoints accessible to the dashboard owner, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('endpoints accessible to the dashboard owner'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by emphasizing 'owner-wide inventory' and the use of MCP access tokens or API keys.
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 context on when to use this tool versus alternatives by indicating PATs are preferred for owner-wide inventory and require mcp:read or mcp:*. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance on credential choice and scope is sufficient for basic selection.
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.