Returns the API catalog (RFC 9727), OpenAPI JSON, and llms.txt for the site. Also see /.well-known/ai-catalog.json for ARD discovery.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "gridlabs_get_agent_discovery"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates the three artifacts returned (API catalog, OpenAPI JSON, llms.txt), which is real behavioral value given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about response shape (one blob vs. separate fields), authentication needs, or rate limits.
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?
Two short sentences with the primary return content front-loaded. The second sentence is cryptic ('ARD discovery') and arguably dilutes focus, but there is no padding or 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?
With no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does list the three artifacts. However, for a discovery endpoint the agent still cannot tell how those artifacts are packaged in the response or whether auth/region constraints apply, leaving a meaningful gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description introduces no parameter behavior that could conflict, and nothing about input semantics is needed.
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 names a concrete verb ('Returns') and concrete resources ('API catalog (RFC 9727), OpenAPI JSON, and llms.txt'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling grid-data tools. The trailing 'for the site' is slightly vague about scope, and the secondary 'Also see' clause muddies rather than sharpens the core purpose.
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?
There is no explicit statement of when an agent should call this tool versus the sibling search/consumption tools, nor any prerequisites. The 'Also see /.well-known/ai-catalog.json' line gestures at an alternative discovery source but never clarifies whether that is another tool, a raw URL, or a fallback path.
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.