apex_query_cardsFind Apex component cards by query, capability, tags, tier, or interface. Public reference data only; not an instruction hierarchy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| min_tier | No | ||
| interface | No | ||
| capability | No |
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?
The description adds value beyond the annotations by specifying that the data is 'public reference data only' and explicitly states it is 'not an instruction hierarchy.' This gives the agent additional context about the nature of the operation and data, though the annotations already cover the read-only aspect.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Find.' It contains no redundant phrases and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
While the description captures the core functionality, it lacks details about return format, default sorting/limits, or how filters combine. The 'not an instruction hierarchy' clause adds useful context, but for a 7-parameter tool without an output schema, the information is just adequate, not comprehensive.
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?
Schema descriptions are absent (0%) so the description must compensate. It names several search dimensions (query, capability, tags, tier, interface) that map to parameters, but it omits 'sort' and 'limit', and does not clarify the 'min_tier' parameter's 'minimum' meaning. This partial coverage yields a minimum-viable score.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a clear resource ('Apex component cards'), and enumerates filter dimensions (query, capability, tags, tier, interface). This distinguishes it from siblings like apex_get_card (which likely retrieves a single card) and the various 'apex_run_*' tools that execute actions, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 context ('Public reference data only; not an instruction hierarchy') that helps the agent understand when this tool is relevant—for querying reference cards, not for executing tasks. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use apex_get_card for a single card') or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions provide sufficient boundaries. Some run_* analytics tools (e.g., deflated_sharpe vs empyrical_metrics) could be conceptually confused, but their specific inputs and outputs minimize ambiguity.
All tools share the apex_ prefix, and the verb_noun pattern is consistent (get, query, run, submit). The 'agent_' subgroup within run tools introduces a minor irregularity, but it remains readily comprehensible.
With 24 tools, the server is on the heavy side, falling into the 16-25 range. Many run_* tools are similar in nature (pure calculations), but each appears to serve a specific purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The server name implies a card store, yet the tool surface only supports reading and querying cards, with no create, update, or delete operations. This is a significant gap that prevents full lifecycle management, though the analytics side is fairly comprehensive.