List every public BitPal REST API operation (method, path, summary), generated from the OpenAPI spec.
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": "list_api_operations"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses provenance ('generated from the OpenAPI spec'), implying the list reflects the spec rather than live traffic, but it says nothing about result size, ordering, or whether the full catalog is returned in one call — material for a tool that promises 'every' operation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the resource is stated first and the supporting detail (fields, provenance) follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating what each returned entry contains (method, path, summary). The only remaining gap is whether the response is paginated or complete in one shot.
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 schema has nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals that no arguments are 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 specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('every public BitPal REST API operation'), the fields each entry carries (method, path, summary), and the source of truth (the OpenAPI spec). The word 'every' plus the singular sibling get_api_operation makes the enumeration-vs-lookup distinction clear without needing the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery/enumeration entry point before calling get_api_operation. There is no explicit 'use this when… / use X instead when…' guidance, no mention of search_docs as an alternative for prose docs, and no prerequisites stated.
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.