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_*) |
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.
Most tools pair a clear verb with a distinct resource noun, so endpoints, agents, datasets, campaigns, products, and vault operations are generally easy to separate. The main risk is the repeated request_*_payment / *_with_payment pairs and the two create_*_with_payment tools, which are only distinguishable by reading descriptions carefully.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case, such as list_my_endpoints, update_campaign, and finalize_agent_registration, and the payment/request pairs are consistently named. The vault_* tools use a namespace prefix rather than verb-first names, and vault_how_to_backup breaks the action-oriented convention, so it is not perfectly uniform.
48 tools is a very large MCP surface, well beyond the 25-tool threshold where selection becomes a serious burden. Even though the server spans multiple domains, the count feels excessive for a single agent-facing tool set and should likely be split by domain.
The core endpoint, agent, marketplace, and payment flows are well covered, including creation, updates, stats, and two-phase x402 purchases. However, there is no create_product or delete_product, campaigns lack delete, and there is no way to list previously purchased datasets, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.