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.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / method / descriptionAdded value: +"The HTTP method (e.g. GET, POST, PUT, DELETE)."Input schema / properties / path / descriptionAdded value: +"The API endpoint path (e.g. /api/v1/users)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not contradict the annotations, which already declare this a read-only, non-destructive operation. It adds useful context about what the response includes (security schemes and servers), but it does not disclose details like authorization requirements, error behavior, or whether the endpoint details are always available.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the most relevant detail about the return value. Every word contributes.
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 two-parameter, read-only tool with well-documented schema and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return contents. The only gap is the lack of an output schema and a more explicit return contract, but the tool's low complexity makes this acceptable.
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 input schema already describes both parameters (path and method) with clear examples, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. This matches the baseline of 3 given 100% schema description coverage.
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's action ('Gets detailed information') and its specific resource ('a specific API endpoint'), and even previews the key response content ('security schemes and servers'). This is distinct from list-endpoints and search-endpoints, which deal with collections rather than a single endpoint.
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 phrase 'specific API endpoint' implies the tool is meant for retrieving details about one endpoint identified by path and method, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over search-endpoints or list-endpoints. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.
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.