get_mock_endpoint
특정 목업 서버의 상세 정보와 엔드포인트 목록을 반환합니다.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mock_id | Yes | 목업 서버 ID |
api-mock-server
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It indicates a read-only operation via '반환' but does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or exact content of 'detailed information.' The read-only nature lowers the risk, but gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately names the return content (details and endpoint list) but does not specify the structure or possible error cases. For a simple one-parameter getter, this is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description '목업 서버 ID' is already present. The tool description adds no additional meaning or format details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns detailed information and endpoint list for a specific mock server. The verb '반환합니다' is specific and the resource is distinct from sibling tools like get_mock_logs or list_mocks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase '특정 목업 서버' implies use when a single server's details are needed, contrasting with list_mocks for all servers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct operation: create, delete, list, get details, get logs, and update response. There is no overlap or ambiguity between any two tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_mock, delete_mock, list_mocks). The verbs are clear and predictably map to actions, with only minor pluralization differences that do not cause confusion.
Tool Count5/5
With exactly 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of managing mock API servers. It provides all essential operations without excessive or redundant tools.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of a mock server: create, read (list and get details), update responses, and delete. Logs add extra visibility, and there are no obvious missing operations for the intended use case.