Get a complete list of FastAPI routes across the entire project, with full paths including router prefixes applied.
List all FastAPI routes across the entire project, with full paths (router prefixes applied).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_root | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / properties / fileRemoved value: -{
- "title": "File",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / project_rootAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Project Root",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "file"
-]New value: +[
+ "project_root"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires any permissions, or any side effects. The description only restates the function without revealing potential performance implications of scanning the whole project or failure modes for invalid project_root paths.
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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the main action and scope. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
The tool has only one parameter, but it is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. There is no usage guidance, no explanation of prerequisites, and no hint about what the output might look like (though an output schema exists, the input ambiguity alone makes the tool difficult to use correctly). The description is far from sufficient for an agent to make a correct call.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the parameter 'project_root'. It does not mention it at all, leaving the agent with no clue about its format, meaning, or constraints. This is a critical gap for a tool with only one parameter.
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 is highly specific: 'List all FastAPI routes across the entire project' uses a clear verb (list), a concrete resource (FastAPI routes), and a defined scope (entire project). The detail about 'full paths (router prefixes applied)' further clarifies the output format, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It does not conflate with any sibling tool, as no other sibling offers route listing.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent is left to infer from the name alone, which is insufficient for selecting between similar analysis tools in the project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.