list-endpointsLists all API paths and their HTTP methods with summaries, organized by path. Results can be passed directly into 'get-endpoint'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoints | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "endpoints": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "method": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that results are organized by path and can be piped into get-endpoint, but doesn't describe pagination or response size limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 with no wasted words. The core function is stated first, and the downstream usage hint is a valuable addition that earns its place.
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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The only minor gap is not mentioning whether the list is exhaustive or if there are limits, but for a simple listing tool with strong annotations, this is nearly complete.
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 provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns (paths, HTTP methods, summaries) and how results can be used downstream. This is sufficient for a no-parameter tool.
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 the tool lists all API paths and their HTTP methods with summaries, organized by path. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get-endpoint and search-endpoints.
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?
The description notes results can be passed directly into 'get-endpoint', which provides a clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it versus search-endpoints, but the zero-parameter design and 'all endpoints' scope make the use case clear.
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.