api_index
Full index of the HookPulse API.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
hookpulse
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool is, not what it returns, whether it requires authentication, or whether it is a read-only listing. The simplicity of an index suggests safety, but this is not explicitly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence with no filler. The key identifying phrase 'Full index of the HookPulse API' is front-loaded and contains the essential information without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is not deeply inadequate, but it leaves the agent wondering what 'index' means in practice: a JSON list of endpoint names, a documentation object, or a status summary. More detail on the shape or contents would make the tool fully self-explanatory.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description need not add parameter-level detail because there is nothing to configure. No gap exists here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
'Full index of the HookPulse API' clearly identifies the tool as providing a comprehensive index of the API, with a specific resource named. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_endpoints, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use api_index versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention that this is the tool to start with for an API overview, nor does it exclude alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: endpoint lifecycle, guest tokens, events, templates, billing, contact, health, and status feeds are clearly separated. Even related tools like get_endpoint and list_endpoints have clearly different scopes.
Naming Consistency3/5
The create_/get_/list_/delete_ prefix pattern is consistent for resource operations, but several tools are bare nouns (api_index, billing, contact, health, status_feed_url) and status_feed_rotate reverses the expected verb-object order. The mixed style reduces predictability.
Tool Count5/5
Fourteen tools is within the ideal scope for an API-focused server, and each tool provides a meaningful capability for using the HookPulse service. The count feels complete without being bloated.
Completeness4/5
The endpoint lifecycle is well covered with create, get, list, and delete, plus supporting features like events, templates, status feeds, and billing. There is no explicit update/pause endpoint operation, but that may be outside the dead-man endpoint model, so the gap is minor.