roki_get_errorExplain an HTTP status or an error message returned by the ROKI API: what it means, the likely cause and what to do. Use this instead of guessing when an integration fails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | Yes | HTTP status ("422"), or a fragment of the message ("Pago no encontrado", "route could not be found", "sandbox"). |
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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by specifying that the tool provides the meaning, likely cause, and recommended action. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it does not describe the exact output format or any limitations.
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 two sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded and the usage guidance in the second sentence. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. The sibling context shows no overlapping tool, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 the parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples of HTTP statuses and message fragments. The description restates this concept but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and a clear resource ('an HTTP status or an error message returned by the ROKI API'). It states exactly what the tool does: explains meaning, likely cause, and what to do. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on other aspects like integration, schemas, or validation.
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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of guessing when an integration fails,' providing a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but no sibling tool offers error explanation, so the guidance is sufficient. Missing a 'when not to use' clause prevents a perfect score.
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 clearly distinct purpose, from searching docs to validating requests to verifying webhook signatures. Even similarly named tools like roki_get_integration_example and roki_scaffold_integration are differentiated by 'complete runnable' vs 'skeleton'.
Tools mostly follow a roki_verb_noun pattern (get, list, search, validate, verify), but a few deviate with noun-only names like roki_status and roki_sandbox_info. The prefix and clear verbs make the pattern predictable overall.
18 tools is on the heavy side, but each serves a distinct role in the integration workflow covered by this server. The count is justified given the breadth of documentation, validation, sandbox, and example generation features.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of an integration: discovery (search_docs, list_operations), learning (guides, examples, schemas), validation (validate_request), sandbox testing (sandbox_try), verification (verify_webhook_signature), and post-integration auditing. No obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose.