about_apexRead-only: returns what Apex by LeadShark is, tier pricing, and the URL of the real authenticated MCP server. Call this first — this endpoint is a discovery stub with no LinkedIn powers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by labeling itself 'Read-only' and stating exactly what it returns. It also sets expectations by noting it has 'no LinkedIn powers', preventing misuse.
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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only' and 'returns', and every clause adds value. No fluff or repetition.
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?
The description gives all essential context for a simple discovery stub: what it returns, when to call it, and what it cannot do. A minor gap is that the phrase 'real authenticated MCP server' is not expanded, but this is a minor omission for an introductory tool.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description adds unnecessary parameter explanation, so this score is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('returns what Apex by LeadShark is, tier pricing, and the URL...') and clearly identifies the resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by calling itself a 'discovery stub with no LinkedIn powers', making its scope explicit.
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?
Explicitly instructs 'Call this first', giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also warns that the endpoint is a discovery stub with no LinkedIn powers, effectively telling users when not to rely on it for LinkedIn operations.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one explains what Apex is, one provides starter prompts, and one outlines setup steps. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the patterns vary: 'about_apex' uses a preposition, 'first_plays' is adjective+noun, and only 'get_setup_steps' follows a verb_noun pattern. This mixed convention is functional but not fully consistent.
Three tools is exactly right for a discovery stub — enough to cover the essential orientation, usage, and setup information without unnecessary bloat.
The discovery surface is complete for its purpose: it tells the user what the product is, what to do first, and how to connect the real server. There are no missing steps for this narrow scope.