Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

pipehero

by io.github.pipehero
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

check_api_drift

Read-only

Compare a collection's docs with the real traffic a tunnel captured (Pro/Team). Returns routes nobody documented, status codes with no example, response or request fields missing from every example (or with another type), undocumented query parameters, and documented fields that never appear. Each finding includes request_id of the newest request that shows it: pass it to save_captured_request to add it to the docs, or fix the docs with upsert_api_endpoint and add_api_example. Use it to find out what drifted after a code change.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>",
      "tunnel": "<tunnel>"
    },
    "name": "check_api_drift"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many recent requests to compare (default 200, max 500).
tunnelYesSubdomain of the tunnel whose traffic to compare.
collection_idYesId from list_api_collections.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / collection_id / description
      Added value: +"Id from list_api_collections."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds non-annotated context worth having: a Pro/Team plan requirement, the presence of request_id in every finding, and the shape of what is returned. No mention of cost, rate limits, or behavior on sparse traffic.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the comparison itself, then the finding taxonomy, then the remediation path. The taxonomy list is long but earns its space given there is no output schema; nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating return contents and the request_id field. All three params are documented in the schema and plan gating is disclosed. Minor gap: no guidance on how many findings to expect or what an empty result means.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the limit default of 200 and max of 500, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only implicitly gestures at collection and tunnel ('a collection's docs', 'traffic a tunnel captured') and adds no format or syntax detail 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?

Specific verb and resource: compares a collection's docs against captured tunnel traffic, and the enumeration of finding types (undocumented routes, unexampled status codes, type mismatches, undocumented query params, dead documented fields) pins down the output precisely. Clearly distinct from sibling mutation tools like upsert_api_endpoint and save_captured_request, which it names as downstream actions.

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?

States an explicit trigger ('Use it to find out what drifted after a code change') and routes the agent to concrete next steps: pass request_id to save_captured_request, or fix docs with upsert_api_endpoint / add_api_example. Missing only explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites beyond the Pro/Team qualifier.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All pipehero toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources