Retrieve OpenAPI JSON documents by lookup value, with optional language, limit, and offset parameters for pagination.
Get documents openapi.json. Backend account permissions and ownership checks apply. Required permissions: public
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| lookup_value | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that backend permission and ownership checks apply and names the required permission, which is useful. However it says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination behavior implied by limit/offset, or the nature of the lookup, leaving most behavioral context unstated.
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?
Two short sentences with no padding and the purpose stated first. However, the permission sentence is cryptic ("public" as a permission value) and the whole entry is under-specified rather than truly concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and many similar siblings, the description omits the parameter guidance and sibling differentiation an agent needs to call 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 0% and four parameters (lang, limit, offset, lookup_value) are entirely unexplained in both schema and description. The description does not compensate at all for the coverage gap, so even the required lookup_value has no stated meaning or format.
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?
"Get documents openapi.json" essentially restates the tool name without a clear verb+resource explanation of what a document actually is or what is returned. It does not distinguish this from siblings like acedatacloud_get_doc, acedatacloud_get_api_spec, or acedatacloud_search_docs.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many doc/spec siblings. The agent gets only a permission note, not a condition that selects this tool over near-identical ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.