Replace an endpoint's body assertions.
Each assertion is {"path": "$.ok", "op": "equals", "value": true}.
Operators: equals, not_equals, exists, not_exists, gt, gte, lt, lte,
contains, not_contains, empty, not_empty. A failing assertion marks the
endpoint DOWN, so it counts against uptime. Pass [] to clear.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assertions | Yes | ||
| endpoint_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that this is a destructive replace (not an append), that a failing assertion marks the endpoint DOWN and counts against uptime, and how to clear assertions. It omits permission requirements, any limit on assertion count, and success/error behavior.
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?
Front-loaded with the operation, then the payload format, then the operator vocabulary, then the consequence and the clear instruction. The operator list is long but fully earns its place because the schema exposes no enum for 'op'.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers semantics, payload format, operator domain, side effect, and the clearing case. It only lacks return/validation detail and any statement of privileges or limits.
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 coverage is 0% and the assertions array is typed only as a bare object with additionalProperties:true, so the description does the heavy lifting: it gives the exact object shape ({path, op, value}) and enumerates all twelve valid operators. endpoint_id is left undocumented, but its name is self-evident.
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?
States a specific verb and target resource ('Replace an endpoint's body assertions'), which is distinct from siblings like update_endpoint_interval (timing) or pause_endpoint (state). An agent can immediately distinguish this from every other endpoint-mutating tool in the list.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Replace' signals overwrite semantics and 'Pass [] to clear' documents one edge case explicitly. However, there is no guidance on when to set assertions versus other endpoint configuration, no prerequisites, and no named alternative tools.
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.