get-endpointGets detailed information about a specific API endpoint, including security schemes and servers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The API endpoint path (e.g. /api/v1/users). | |
| method | Yes | The HTTP method (e.g. GET, POST, PUT, DELETE). |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not belabor safety. It adds useful context that the response includes security schemes and servers, which informs response expectations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or the full response structure. With annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, and the mention of security schemes and servers gives a concrete sense of scope. Efficient and immediately scannable.
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?
For a simple read-only endpoint tool with two well-documented parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the tool's purpose and hints at response content. However, without an output schema, an agent might want more detail on the full response fields, though 'detailed information' plus the named examples may suffice for this low-complexity 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (path and method) are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Gets'), a resource ('detailed information about a specific API endpoint'), and highlights notable content (security schemes and servers). It implies a targeted operation distinct from list/search siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. Clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like list-endpoints or search-endpoints. There is no mention of typical use cases, preconditions, or when to prefer an alternative. The agent must infer from the name and description alone, which offers no explicit direction.
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 clear and distinct role: discovery (search-endpoints), enumeration (list-endpoints), detail lookup (get-endpoint), execution (execute-request), and payment handling (pay-with-x402). No two tools overlap in purpose; even list and search serve different discovery workflows.
All tool names follow a consistent verb-object pattern with hyphens (execute-request, get-endpoint, list-endpoints, pay-with-x402, search-endpoints). The naming is uniform, predictable, and immediately conveys the action and target.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for an API client wrapper. It covers discovery, inspection, execution, and payment without unnecessary bloat, striking an ideal balance between power and simplicity.
The tools form a complete lifecycle for interacting with the Vybe API: discover endpoints, get details, execute requests, and handle payment for keyless access. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of a pay-per-call Solana data API.