Browse the SBGrid3.0 API surface by category. Call with no argument to get all top-level categories; pass a category to list the APIs under it. Use to explore what exists when you don't have a specific keyword. ⚠️ SBGrid3 코드/샘플 생성 시 서버 공통지침(표준 골격에서 출발 · columns/gridConfig 리터럴 나열 · 요청 기능만 최소 적용) 준수 — 상세는 서버 instructions 참고.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Category to list APIs for (optional). Omit to return the list of all categories. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / category / descriptionAdded value: +"Category to list APIs for (optional). Omit to return the list of all categories."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The description explains the browsing behavior but does not mention any potential side effects, safety profile, or authentication needs. The Korean warning relates to a separate context and adds confusion rather than transparency.
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 core description is concise, but the Korean warning about SBGrid3 code/sample generation is tangential and takes up space without helping the agent use this tool. It could be removed or moved to a separate note.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and usage. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of strings) or any pagination, which could be helpful for an agent. The extraneous warning does not contribute to completeness.
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 schema description of the 'category' parameter is already clear, but the tool description adds context by explaining 'top-level categories' vs 'APIs under it', enhancing the semantic meaning beyond the schema alone.
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 purpose: browsing the SBGrid3.0 API surface by category. It specifies the verb 'browse' and the resource 'API surface', and distinguishes itself from siblings like searchSBGridAPI and getSBGridAPIDetail.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('when you don't have a specific keyword') and how to invoke it with or without the category argument. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives, though the sibling context makes that 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.
Each tool serves a distinct function: searching, listing categories, getting detailed API documentation, and retrieving example code. There is no overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., getSBGridAPIDetail, searchSBGridAPI), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for exploring API documentation. Each tool earns its place, covering search, browse, detail, and examples without redundancy or gaps.
The tools cover the full lifecycle of accessing documentation: search to find, list to browse, get detail for reference, and get example for code. No obvious missing operations.